Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
I saw it. That was where he was giving his hypothesis/slant/perspective on this free will versus determinism debate. He is leaning towards Descartes and dualism, a sort of secularized soul. I pulled the transcript from You-Tube and will be able to quote some passages. I am still working with it. */*/*/*/* There are differing schools of thought in this debate , as I documented with a wiki paste the other day. Here is the text from the wiki on Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis" Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities. Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans. Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.). Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics. Here is the same paragraph broke up into schools of thought: Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities. Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans. Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.). Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics. */*/*/*/*/* It looks like Sean Carroll is leaning towards the 2nd and/or 4th school. I work within the first school, the materialist approach.
-
That video is good. I like Sean Carroll. That's the second time this video was posted. He mentions Libertarian Free Will. That's also called classical and contra-causal. Sean Carroll is a Physicist and ALL the determinism he mentions here is the simple physics type. My work is in the compatibilst area that he mentions. I purposely designed minFW to be a compatibilist kind of FW by having it USE determinism to generate its freedom. Someone here (Nathan_Jr ?) was aghast at the idea there could be more than one kind of free will. Yes, there are. Dennett wrote a whole book on the "other" varieties of free will.
-
Determinism can yield some freedoms. It is easy to see that the universe of a sailboat is 100% deterministic. Yet, there can still be freedom seen in the boat being independent of the determinism of wind direction. The way the boat does this it uses the determinism in the Bernoulli effect to gain this freedom from wind direction. For a simple raft with a simple square sail, it can only go in the same direction as the wind. The wind direction DETERMINES the direction of the boat. But when you add a steerable sail, a keel, and a rudder then the determinism patterns of those special shapes overcome the determinism patterns of wind direction. So, raw determinism can force things to go a certain way, and cleverly manipulated determinism can allow for some freedoms. Determinism in the raw pretty much means a lack of freedom, but determinism that is processed can yield some surprising freedoms when it seems they could not survive.
-
I think most of the bad thinking of twi was due to the Way Corps Nazi element and the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions), and I thankfully avoided most of that.
-
Is it possible to break a GOOD habit? Yes.
-
Yes, that would be a contradiction. I don't take the position you described. My position is that it is DIFFICULT to hold someone responsible, that courts can be clumsy, but that it should be attempted anyway. It has never been my position that "they have no control of self." That is just the opposite of my position. Where are you getting these erroneous takes on my position?
-
Right, and thank God we have a biological mechanism that has the ability to cause actions that can free us from bad determining causes, by being stronger than the bad causes.
-
I think I can agree with every point there. The big question is how can free will happen in such a deterministic universe, and that is what I was DIRECTLY addressing. My inclination is to say that the details that are bound up in the classical definition of free will make it impossible to be the actual biological mechanism we have giving us some freedom. It really is a broken definition, so I set out to fix it by making it weaker, a little delayed, and deterministic. The same way a sailboat enjoys some freedom from the determinism of wind direction, we can enjoy some freedom from determinism of our brain chemistry and learning.
-
I see great clarity (regular math?) when I apply Romans 7 to my life, and hold myself responsible for my actions. Things get real fuzzy trying to hold others responsible, but it can be done in an approximate sense. The judicial systems of the world are pretty clumsy, but it's better to have them than to live in anarchy.
-
Did you purposely miss the part where I said their attitudes of great irresponsibility disgust me? Or was that just a sloppy oversight on your part? Some of the websites that promote the idea of there being no free will tend to attract irresponsible people who seek justification for their behavior. They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit. The posters that focus on the "no credit" part are often Communists. Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will. Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting. I do believe in a type of free will where we are responsible for our behavior, and we can TRY to hold others to be similarly responsible.
-
No, but I will tie it to to the Facebook groups where I have spent many hours debating free will. They are heavily populated with people that argue precisely that: no blame and no credit. Many of them are young, European political activists and they are grinding an axe at the world's judicial systems. Some of them are just misfits and trying to justify their lives of failure. Very bitter people, and full of glee to find a website that promotes the idea that there is no free will. Their motives in debating there is no free will are easy to see, and I find it disgusting. I do believe in a type of free will where we are responsible for our behavior, and we can TRY to hold others to be similarly responsible.
-
The definition of free will is changed in my hypothesis. The videos you watched refer to classical free will, also called Libertarian, also called Contra-causal. The debate of this free will and determinism has gone back and forth for over 2,000 years, but it really picked up steam when Physics was invented. The reason this debate is so tough is because Libertarian Free Will is defined in such a way that it is almost 100% opposite determinism. It's like an anti-determinism idea, or an idea that demands a waiver from determinism. It never gets resolved, so I gave up on it, and decided to start all over. Dennett gave me some ideas. Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) is anti-determinism. I invented one that is pro-determinism. THAT is what is new in my hypothesis. It is a Deterministic Hypothesis for Free Will. All other theories or ideas of free will are IN-DETERMINISTIC, or seek to dodge or nullify determinism. If you can find another Deterministic set of ideas out there, then I am very interested in contacting them. I have the only one I know of. Dennett has some, but in writing he is unclear about his stand WITH determinism. It comes out in his videos, though, quite clearly. I thought that Dennett was going to give me one, and he came close, and I got good hints from him.
-
If the discussion is taking place in the laboratories of Neuroscience, it will NOT be philosophical determinism that they assume is true and use. They will assume and use the simple physics determinism when describing the activities of the brain cells. Eventually Neuroscience, IMO, will solve these issues and be the final judge, at least from a scientific and medical point of view.
-
It was Adam that granted the devil the rulership of this world, not God. God has to operate behind enemy lines. That is a big part of the answer. In those pages I referred to it was devil, satan, and adversary that were mentioned. A "whispering" is figurative and it could be by manipulating the environment. I remember someone wondering similarly here about how come satan's seed was available before God's seed. I thought about that for a long time, and finally realized that the only thing "seedy" about satan's seed is it's permanence. Otherwise I'd look at it as a counterfeit and not identical to seed in all ways. Similarly for whispering. In WWAY it mentions that the vision the devil gave jesus of all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time was BY REVELATION. I don't know how all these things work, but I do track with "it is written" and get good guidance. */*/*/*/* This is off topic, of course. Have you thought about starting a thread?
-
Also in the Crick wiki article is this, which shows the 3 schools of thought in Neuroscience: Criticism Crick's decidedly materialistic approach to explaining consciousness has many detractors both in the neuroscientific and philosophical communities. Some, such as neurologist and Nobel Laureate Gerald Edelman believe that neural Darwinism is a more satisfactory explanation for the emergence of complex intelligence in humans. Another school of thought, this one largely made up of those outside of scientific disciplines, consider consciousness to either be simply beyond the possibility of explanation or at least dependent on some qualities that are not simply physical (i.e. molecules, etc.). Lastly, those who support quantum theory of mind also disagree with how Crick simplifies the workings of the brain to only classical physics. */*/*/*/* I am working with the first mentioned model, Crick and materialism.
-
It would help our discussion if you did read it.
-
Wiki Synopsis of Francis Crick's last book: The Astonishing Hypothesis posits that "a person's mental activities are entirely due to the behavior of nerve cells, glial cells, and the atoms, ions, and molecules that make them up and influence them." Crick claims that scientific study of the brain during the 20th century led to acceptance of consciousness, free will, and the human soul as subjects for scientific investigation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Astonishing_Hypothesis
-
That is what the debate is all about. Science sez that you CAN apply the rules learned with inanimate objects to animate creatures. Francis Crick's last book is titled "The Astonishing Hypothesis," and that hypothesis is that the inanimate rules DO APPLY to the brain and all that goes in in it. He was the main ring leader of the group I hung out with at UCSD. They all agree on this. Hard-core science is looking at this brain situation as being natural, and that it is a very complicated mechanism, and that it is EVEN somewhat explainable. Hard core science is very well lined up with the Bible and PFAL in looking at the human brain/mind as being natural and not supernatural, as being mortal, and as having no preeminence above the beasts. Another line-up is both see man's opinion of the glory of his own consciousness as a giant confabulation. This is still developing in Neuroscience, but confabulation is a central player without doubt.
-
That is at the heart of my switch 9 years ago: the ghost in the machine. I took the tip from VPW that natural man had free will to get born again and applied it to this free will theory of mine. That means I am looking at SOUL as existing in the natural realm, not in the spiritual realm. I think people with spirit are much more than sophisticated robots. But a soul is not immortal, and man has no preeminence above the beasts, which have soul also. Soul houses the mind, but without spirit, that is just a natural man mind, it is a subject of the adversary's, which is not all that special....compared to a body,soul, spirit being's mind. Fighting off bigotry, remember that a body and soul man may get born again tomorrow, and that Jesus died for all body and soul people. I love soul, but I see it as a natural thing, not a supernaturally un-explainable thing. Natural things seem to yield to some sort of understanding by science, and I think the brain and decisions will be shown to be wonderfully complicated mechanisms someday. Lots of the mechanisms of the body are astoundingly complex and beautiful. Soul is probably the most beautiful. Natural as it is, soul can love with phileo and want to do better. When a natural man has spiritual hunger, moving with free will and seeking God is sure to connect. How could God miss someone seeking Him?
-
Philosophy has a different kind of determinism. It is complicated, because it is focused on humans. I think this kind of determinism goes back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. The kind of determinism that comes up in Neuroscience, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics is only 400 years old max, and it is VERY simple because it starts with INANIMATE objects, like billiard balls and atoms. Here is a most simple example of this more simple kind of physics determinism, in all its glory and simplicity: A train leaves NYC traveling at a constant 60 miles per hour. Assuming no interruptions and interventions, how far away is the train from NYC 2 hours later? The train’s constant speed DETERMINES what the train’s location will be at that later time. speed = distance/time distance = speed x time distance = 60 x 2 = 120 miles When you see the "=" sign in those equations it can read this way: The distance is determined by the train's speed multiplied by the time span. It’s really that simple. I always am referring to this second, simple, physics kind of determinism when discussing minFW, because I see free will as a natural function of the brain, just like other natural functions of the human body. Neuroscience leans on this same kind of determinism that I lean on.
-
h Mostly all of quantum's unpredictability is for micro particles like electrons and protons. It evaporates when you get to larger systems, like atoms heavier than Hydrogen and Helium. The quantum lack of predictability smooths out in the world of stable atoms and chemistry which is where we live. We don't see ANY of that unpredictability; it's gone at our level. Lack of predictability in humans is not necessarily due to free will. There are FAR more variables to keep track of with humans, compared to simple atoms and molecules. This impedes predictability. There are many variables with humans we cannot measure, and many that we haven't even conceived of yet. Predicting human behavior, even for those humans without free will, is impossible. Besides, I think most of the time will operate as very sophisticated robots. This is what sports is all about. Most of the time we don't need to make a free will decision. We rarely sign contracts that require lots of thinking. Most of our good behavior now is due to us learning, via free will, good habit patterns in the past. When we see a bad habit, that is the time we should be thinking of free will to change that bad habit.
-
I've been dealing with determinism since 1966. What I really want, in directing people to my chapter 5 on determinism, is that you folks get up to speed a little bit. I get the feeling this is your first discussion on determinism.
-
I don't get the last half of your last line. Is there a typo?
-
Not deflecting. Read my chapter 5 on determinism.
-
If you had read my chapters with any thoroughness and understanding you would have realized that maxFW was invented 1000 years ago (probably by Thomas Aquinas). Today this maxFW it is called classical free will, Libertarian Free Will, and Contra-Causal Free Will. When you study the details of this common, everyday maxFW you will see that it is magical, mystical, and pretty much in line with what the devil promised Eve would get from apple nutrition.
