Does Freewill Exist?

[MoSurveyor]

There are 10 types of people in the world, those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[RGacky3]

You are grasping at straws now if by that simple sentence you cam away with what you are trying to say that I meant.


That doesnt at all imply that the brain is like a random generator. I was giving an example that defies your logic. You are trying to say that the nature of reality is entirely predictable if you had all the information needed. But actually there are things that cannot be predicted. The existence of the unpredictable shoots a big hole in your argument.

Never said that matter didnt act like matter.

Is it all predetermined?

For your argument to be believable you need to show that the universe is 100% predetermined.

The fact is that modern physics is moving away from determinism. Yet you act as if determinism as been completely proven and that indeterminism has been disproved.

What's your point here ... modern physics is moving away from determinism on a sub-atomic level ... but my argument stands for indeterminism also.

What are you saying human's are capable of doing ... if not making decisions? i.e. chosing from various options?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

What's your point here ... modern physics is moving away from determinism on a sub-atomic level ... but my argument stands for indeterminism also.

What are you saying human's are capable of doing ... if not making decisions? i.e. chosing from various options?

Im thinking of a number between 0 and ∞ can you guess what it is? Probably not since the chances are too big. So Ill narrow it down to multiple choice.

A. 77
B. 777
C. 7777
D. none of the above.

So which is it A,B,C,or D?

I decided to pick one (or not) now you may pick one or not, or since no rule actually forbids it you could pick all of the numbers or I could have as well. The choice that I made was arbitrary and meaningless.

If a person is faced with a situation that can have various outcomes based on the decisions made by a single person (whether those decisions were in fact conscious or sub-conscious is irrelevant). The fact is that a person can have a lasting definite effect on their surroundings. A decision is provided by the persons brain which makes a definite distinction between a inanimate object and a thinking brain. The problem is that humans have come up with different theories on the true nature of reality and none of them have been proven as being the truth. It is my belief that the confusion comes form a error in observation of reality. Too much worth is put of the concept of free will, whether its believed possible or not possible. It turns out that it becomes a over simplified either its positive or its not positive, as if the two concepts were the only choice. It has been observed that the sub conscious mind sometimes jumps the gun and influences the conscious mind to make a certain decision. Thats great but either way a decision was come to. Was it magic no because making decisions is a function of the brain.

Again you seem to be wanting me to be asserting something that I dont believe that I am. Decision making isnt a myth it can be observed. But if you are trying to go on about how the future is already written so no one can decide anything then I must demand that you prove that. If not then what is your point exactly?

 

[RGacky3]

Im thinking of a number between 0 and ∞ can you guess what it is? Probably not since the chances are too big. So Ill narrow it down to multiple choice.

A. 77
B. 777
C. 7777
D. none of the above.

So which is it A,B,C,or D?

I decided to pick one (or not) now you may pick one or not, or since no rule actually forbids it you could pick all of the numbers or I could have as well. The choice that I made was arbitrary and meaningless.

If a person is faced with a situation that can have various outcomes based on the decisions made by a single person (whether those decisions were in fact conscious or sub-conscious is irrelevant). The fact is that a person can have a lasting definite effect on their surroundings. A decision is provided by the persons brain which makes a definite distinction between a inanimate object and a thinking brain. The problem is that humans have come up with different theories on the true nature of reality and none of them have been proven as being the truth. It is my belief that the confusion comes form a error in observation of reality. Too much worth is put of the concept of free will, whether its believed possible or not possible. It turns out that it becomes a over simplified either its positive or its not positive, as if the two concepts were the only choice. It has been observed that the sub conscious mind sometimes jumps the gun and influences the conscious mind to make a certain decision. Thats great but either way a decision was come to. Was it magic no because making decisions is a function of the brain.

Again you seem to be wanting me to be asserting something that I dont believe that I am. Decision making isnt a myth it can be observed. But if you are trying to go on about how the future is already written so no one can decide anything then I must demand that you prove that. If not then what is your point exactly?

It was arbitrary and meaningless to YOU, but what you chose is a result of brain activity, that brain activity was caused by previous brain states and sense data, all of which were mechanically caused by other physical things, that result came NECESSARILY from the previous brain states and sense data ... meaning you COULD'NT have chosen otherwise, because you don't "choose" the brain states, they are caused by previous brain states, and stimuli and caused necessarily by the laws of nature.

Now just because in your experience it's arbitrary and meaningless doesn't change ANY of that.

Also what is the fundemental difference between an inanimate object and a thinking brain? Take a computer?

Decision making IS a myth, lots of things can be observed that when we look deeper what's going on isn't what we think is whats going on.

The point I'm making is that there is no decision making, whether or NOT the future is fixed, our brains are no different than any thing else in the physical world, matter in motion following laws of nature, it has no more agency than a stone rolling down a hill.

People used to say that natural phenomenon was purpousful and through agency, like the stone wanted to roll down the hill, now we understand laws of physics and the such, now if you want to say that the brain acts differently fundementally, you need to provide evidence for that.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

It was arbitrary and meaningless to YOU, but what you chose is a result of brain activity, that brain activity was caused by previous brain states and sense data, all of which were mechanically caused by other physical things, that result came NECESSARILY from the previous brain states and sense data ... meaning you COULD'NT have chosen otherwise, because you don't "choose" the brain states, they are caused by previous brain states, and stimuli and caused necessarily by the laws of nature.

Now just because in your experience it's arbitrary and meaningless doesn't change ANY of that.

Also what is the fundemental difference between an inanimate object and a thinking brain? Take a computer?

Decision making IS a myth, lots of things can be observed that when we look deeper what's going on isn't what we think is whats going on.

The point I'm making is that there is no decision making, whether or NOT the future is fixed, our brains are no different than any thing else in the physical world, matter in motion following laws of nature, it has no more agency than a stone rolling down a hill.

People used to say that natural phenomenon was purpousful and through agency, like the stone wanted to roll down the hill, now we understand laws of physics and the such, now if you want to say that the brain acts differently fundementally, you need to provide evidence for that.

You obviously want me to say that the brain acts fundamentally different, but seriously I never said that it did in the first place.



Here is what I get from your argument: 'The brain doesnt really do anything at all, it is a myth.'

I dont care what people used to say about rocks. But here is a fact a rock has no brain. What do you think that the gray matter does inside your skull, does it not have a function?

What does neuroscience have to say about brain functions?

lets look at some facts:

Decision-Making - BrainFacts.org take a good look at the references for this article.

I dont know who told you that decision making is a myth but I dont share your belief system so therefore reject it as misinformed.

The Neuroscience of Decision Making - BrainFacts.org

Decision Neuroscience Laboratory | Stanford University

Decision Neuroscience Laboratory

The Decision Neuroscience Laboratory investigates the neural basis of human decision making. This includes both how we learn the value of goods and actions in the world and how we use this information to decide between different actions. Models of decision making are rooted in brain function. Recent work has particularly emphasized the function of the midbrain dopamine system and how this interacts with areas in the prefrontal and parietal cortices to produce decisions. Other work investigates how individual (e.g. age) and environmental (e.g. social context) differences are reflected concomitantly in brain function and behavior.
We are in the Psychology Department at Stanford University. Our research is closely affiliated with the program for Mind, Brain an Computation. We also conduct research in conjunction with the Center on Longevity, and are part of the Neuroscience Institute.


If yoiu dont read any of these links at least read this last one. It basically is comfiming what I have been saying. Though considering that you want me to say that the brain is magic I doubt that you have been following along.
Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Experts' Corner | Big Think

Think of a situation where you had bulletproof facts, reason, and logic on your side, and believed there was absolutely no way the other person could say no to your perfectly constructed argument and proposal. To do so would be impossible, you figured, because there was no other logical solution or answer.

And then the other person dug in his heels and refused to budge. He wasn’t swayed by your logic. Were you flabbergasted?

 

[RGacky3]

You obviously want me to say that the brain acts fundamentally different, but seriously I never said that it did in the first place.



Here is what I get from your argument: 'The brain doesnt really do anything at all, it is a myth.'

I dont care what people used to say about rocks. But here is a fact a rock has no brain. What do you think that the gray matter does inside your skull, does it not have a function?

What does neuroscience have to say about brain functions?

lets look at some facts:

Decision-Making - BrainFacts.org take a good look at the references for this article.

I dont know who told you that decision making is a myth but I dont share your belief system so therefore reject it as misinformed.

The Neuroscience of Decision Making - BrainFacts.org

Decision Neuroscience Laboratory | Stanford University

Decision Neuroscience Laboratory

The Decision Neuroscience Laboratory investigates the neural basis of human decision making. This includes both how we learn the value of goods and actions in the world and how we use this information to decide between different actions. Models of decision making are rooted in brain function. Recent work has particularly emphasized the function of the midbrain dopamine system and how this interacts with areas in the prefrontal and parietal cortices to produce decisions. Other work investigates how individual (e.g. age) and environmental (e.g. social context) differences are reflected concomitantly in brain function and behavior.
We are in the Psychology Department at Stanford University. Our research is closely affiliated with the program for Mind, Brain an Computation. We also conduct research in conjunction with the Center on Longevity, and are part of the Neuroscience Institute.


If yoiu dont read any of these links at least read this last one. It basically is comfiming what I have been saying. Though considering that you want me to say that the brain is magic I doubt that you have been following along.
Decisions Are Emotional, not Logical: The Neuroscience behind Decision Making | Experts' Corner | Big Think

Think of a situation where you had bulletproof facts, reason, and logic on your side, and believed there was absolutely no way the other person could say no to your perfectly constructed argument and proposal. To do so would be impossible, you figured, because there was no other logical solution or answer.

And then the other person dug in his heels and refused to budge. He wasn’t swayed by your logic. Were you flabbergasted?

At what point goes agency come in in the brain?

I can find you neuroscientists that say it's all deterministic as well, arguments from athority doesn't work.

When I say you think the brain acts fundementally different what I mean is you say that the brain can be in a state and then go one of 2 or more ways and choose one of those ways ... NOTHING ELSE in the universe acts like that, nothing, no computer, no system, nothing.

A computer has a state, has options, but something in that state determines what the outcome will be, or it's 100% random, how is the brain different? How could it be? Where does agency come from?

The neuroscience is talking about the chemical and physical ways the thing we call "deicions making works" it isn't dealing with the philosophical question.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

At what point goes agency come in in the brain?

What do you mean? Could you be more specific?

I can find you neuroscientists that say it's all deterministic as well, arguments from athority doesn't work.

Well of course the authority that I linked didnt agree with your claims. But I linked them to show you that I am not talking fantasy when I assert that on of the brains functions is decision making. In fact what I did provide here is proof and if you dont consider it proof you need to do better than calling is a argument from authority.

The process of decision making has been shown to exist in the brain. For you to claim otherwise is a grand claim and needs more than you saying so.

When I say you think the brain acts fundementally different what I mean is you say that the brain can be in a state and then go one of 2 or more ways and choose one of those ways ... NOTHING ELSE in the universe acts like that, nothing, no computer, no system, nothing.

No you said that , I did not. You seem to be having a argument with yourself. I believe that you just might win that debate.

A computer has a state, has options, but something in that state determines what the outcome will be, or it's 100% random, how is the brain different? How could it be? Where does agency come from?

How is the brain different? I suspect at this point no matter how I answer you will not accept my answer.

The neuroscience is talking about the chemical and physical ways the thing we call "deicions making works" it isn't dealing with the philosophical question.

So then you reject science in favor of philosophical beliefs? To the point we are going to continue talking past each other because of the fact that you are trying to talk about Philosophy of Neuroscience while my arguments come from Neurophilosophy. You obviously wont accept concepts like decision making, personhood, etc.

The Philosophy of Neuroscience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

http://www.petemandik.com/philosophy/papers/brookmandik.pdf

 

[RGacky3]

What do you mean? Could you be more specific?

At what point does the brain become more than a mechanical machine and gain the ability to make a decision?

Well of course the authority that I linked didnt agree with your claims. But I linked them to show you that I am not talking fantasy when I assert that on of the brains functions is decision making. In fact what I did provide here is proof and if you dont consider it proof you need to do better than calling is a argument from authority.

The process of decision making has been shown to exist in the brain. For you to claim otherwise is a grand claim and needs more than you saying so.

It's a process of something we call decision making, in theory you could find it in a computer as well .... That doesn't argue against my point.

No you said that , I did not. You seem to be having a argument with yourself. I believe that you just might win that debate.

If the brain can make a decision ... that's something NO OTHER piece of matter can do ... i.e. it's fundementally different.

How is the brain different? I suspect at this point no matter how I answer you will not accept my answer.

I'll accept it if it's coherant.

So then you reject science in favor of philosophical beliefs? To the point we are going to continue talking past each other because of the fact that you are trying to talk about Philosophy of Neuroscience while my arguments come from Neurophilosophy. You obviously wont accept concepts like decision making, personhood, etc.

The Philosophy of Neuroscience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

http://www.petemandik.com/philosophy/papers/brookmandik.pdf

Those links don't discuss personhood ...

The fact is you're arguing for agency here ... you don't call it "free will" but it basically is the same thing, you just call it something different. You're arguing that we have agency and that we can decide between various options and that we are not 100% determined or random.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

At what point does the brain become more than a mechanical machine and gain the ability to make a decision?

What do you mean by more?

It's a process of something we call decision making, in theory you could find it in a computer as well .... That doesn't argue against my point.

What exactly is your point?

If the brain can make a decision ... that's something NO OTHER piece of matter can do ... i.e. it's fundementally different.

I still think that you have a different concept of what decision making is. I tried to explain the concept but I dont think that you are listening.

Those links don't discuss personhood ...

Actually they did mention personhood.

The fact is you're arguing for agency here ... you don't call it "free will" but it basically is the same thing, you just call it something different. You're arguing that we have agency and that we can decide between various options and that we are not 100% determined or random.

See I knew no matter what I said and no matter how painstakingly I tried to explain it, you would ignore it all, and try and say that I am arguing for free will.


You obviously believe that decision making requires magical agency. Thats fine you can believe what you like. And you can even try to make it sound like that I believe all that crap. It doesnt really matter to me if you at all understand me. I feel that I made my argument well and understandable, Im not going to worry about the fact that you didnt understand it. Which doesnt change my claims at all and as I said before I am fine with the way reality appears to be to us. I believe that I make decisions and you dont believe that anyone can make decisions.

But really when we really get down to it, and analyse reality what makes you so sure that your version is the correct analyses? Perhaps your definition of decision making is flawed? Two predetermined outcomes to choose from yet there can only be one outcome. Multiple choice. Pull the trigger or dont pull the trigger. Whatever the outcome is, nothing defied physics.