Determinism and the Illusion of Free Will

[Mike]

10 hours ago, T-Bone said:

T-Bone - To me you’re talking in circles. You say you’re only talking about the natural man’s mind/free will - and not using PFAL criteria. So what reference points are YOU using to determine your postulates?

I am limiting my analysis to the most simple case: natural man.

This is a different focus than most of PFAL, but it is not not forsaking what I learned in PFAL.  I mentioned right after chapter 1 that there were only 3 details I am aware of PFAL mentioning free will, and I am aware of no such details in the Bible. I  use NONE of the PFAL postulates in the theory, but I do use use standard scientific postulates.

Here are the 3 PFAL points I keep in mind and respect in my theory:

1 - FW is not supernatural or spiritual. It is a biological function that even natural men have, and need to believe Romans 10:9

2 – You cannot control the thoughts that hit your mind, but you can control whether or not they can lodge there.

3 – Loss of muscular control is not good.  We use our FW to move our muscles, lips, and throat, as we were taught how to SIT.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - also, you seem to be drawing a hard line of distinction regarding free will in the natural man and free will in a Christian - why? What difference does it make regarding free will in either person?

*Spirit makes a big difference.  It is an addition avenue for learning.  It is supernatural, so it cannot be included easily or well in a natural handling, which is what science is.

Not having spirit is a much more simple situation. Once free will in the simple natural man is understood, then we can move on to the situation that includes spirit.

That is the normal way to do science: take the most simple possible case first, and then build from there.  

You would be amazed at how much of Physics is built on top of a simple pendulum swinging on a string.  The math from pendulum analysis shows up almost everywhere, including quantum mechanics.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - What are the  physical / detectable / measurable evidence or signs that you think should motivate “laboratory scientists “ to investigate further?

The simple astonishing fact that I can show them a DETERMINISTIC mechanism that supports some sort of freedom in decision making. I mention this in the text.

I am offering something they have never seen: a nuts and bolts way that humans can have a freedom in decisions, that looks like a weakened and delayed form of the mystical form of free will that has dominated Western thought for 1000 years.

The kind of free will that I am suggesting is the first kind that CAN POSSIBLY be Biological.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - If your goal is to offer PRACTICAL tips on free will for “non-scientists” - then can you describe what your target looks like? 

Not yet.  I haven't thought that through very much.  I do see that persistence is key in successfully operating minFW.  I tip people verbally about that already.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - What would be the benefit to the natural man’s mind? 

I think once minFW is verified, or something like it, then brain damage victims can be helped better if there is a theory behind free will helping health care workers restore brain functions.

As I mention in Chapter 1, victimization is overwhelming our culture, and that sounds like a partial loss of free will to me.  I think my theory can help natural man to have MORE free will and make better decisions, including believing in Jesus someday.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - What information do you have that will inform / enhance the natural man’s mind / free will in a hands-on situation?

Love, both phileo and agapeo.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - If your aim is to provide a viable solution to a problem- then what specific successes have you achieved so far in your experiments?

*Since this is theoretical biology in a sense, the first success is getting another scientist to invest a little time in thinking it through.   There are a lot of researchers looking at things like "mirror" cell circuits in the brain that seem to be involved in emulation, and this minFW theory has emulation at its heart.

What I am doing is saying that there CAN be a deterministic way to achieve the freedom that is needed for a biological animal in life. 

Up until now serious free will advocates have been looking for ways AROUND determinism in order to explain free will.  That means they lose the attention of 95% of all laboratory researchers who depend on determinism every move and every hour.

I have an attention getting story in that minFW is 100% deterministic.  That means to Biologists that it CAN possibly be correct.  It isn't dismissed outright for being indeterministic.  I mention this in the text also.

 

 

[Mike]

aps

7 hours ago, So_crates said:

...the ability to decide is what free will is all about.

I am repeating here but this is important.
 

What you wrote is almost true.  Here is it's correction:
...the ability to decide is what "the free will debate" is all about.

The debate is about whether a particular decision was made freely or not. 

Is a decision made free of all influences, completely on one's own volition?

Or is that decision made by force of the synapse set just prior to the decision?

The synapse set is ALL the lifetime of learning and experiences prior to the decision.

 

[Mike]

 

7 hours ago, Mike said:

There are TWO possible ways decisions can be made:

1 - freely, with no cause whatsoever, by free will.

2- forced, according to the synapse set just prior to the decision.

So when you see a decision is made from outer behavior, you have no idea if that was a forced, robotic decision or a free will decision.

 

 

7 hours ago, T-Bone said:

That seems like a false dilemma – there’s many factors that might be in play – at the subconscious level, mental and emotional baggage, mental illness, psychology / physical trauma, PTSD to name just a few  

 

All the many factors you mentioned are included in my #2's "...synapse set just prior to the decision"

All those things can pack a powerful punch in forcing behavior.

[Mike]

6 hours ago, T-Bone said:

Mike, like I said maybe back off trying to redefine stuff – especially when your descriptions do not accurately represent what you’re taking about. It makes it look like you’re trying to come up with something new and different to camouflage that it was someone else’s idea…hmmmmm where have I seen that before? 

 

No this is very new in the sense that it is the first theory of a deterministic free will.  All other compatibilist approaches, that I am aware of, try to go around or nullify determinism.  I think I am the first one to try and make friends with determinism, and I got that idea from Dennett. He never followed through on it though. 

If you can find another deterministic theory of free will, one that respects and uses determinism, I would drop everything to contact the author and learn it.

[Mike]

5 hours ago, T-Bone said:

... your “thesis” going against the sciences – I had said your “thesis” also goes against what the Bible teaches...everyone has a conscience – and that there seems to be "stuff in there"     even from the beginning of humankind that God will use as a basis to judge through Jesus Christ: 

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.  Romans 2

Humankind had a conscience even before the fall – why else would they have felt shame and want to hide from God in Genesis 3 ?  there was no one before them to teach them what’s right or wrong! You have to ask yourself – why did they feel bad?

Adam and Eve had just lost spirit, and things changed to make them feel bad.  God had done a lot of previous teaching and He made their biology able to recognize them not obeying.

After them, their children had to be TAUGHT slowly and gradually and naturally. THAT is how the law's essence was written into their hearts. It happened in the months and years after birth, from normal life experiences. 

Our DNA ensures that if a child is grown in a civil environment then that child automatically gets these things installed.  It is conceivable that there are some children raised in super crazy circumstances and nourishment where this fails, but normally it works, even with unbelievers.  Even with cats and dogs, on a much smaller scale.

 

[Mike]

2 hours ago, So_crates said:

As with your point with Paul and Damascus. Could he have refused God then, too? Then he had a choice, free will.

His free will was spread out in the days and months before he set out on the Road to Damascus. It can be seen in what he allowed to lodge in his mind.  He must have been thinking about what Stephen said, and he also heard witnessing from the people he persecuted.  All those influences were accumulating prior to his final decision to believe and act on the Word.

[Mike]

2 hours ago, So_crates said:

No insult just statement of fact. When somebody twists themselves into a pretzel trying to hold on to something that's obviously false, according to science, according to the bible, and according to common sense, they're either trying to bull you, or are unaware of what they're talking about.

OR another possiblity.  It could be that I am right and that you just don't understand the theory yet.  Have you read all of the 5 chapters I posted?    I have evidence you did not understand vast sections of it.  If you started all over and just read the chapters, you may have a different take on it.

[Mike]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

 

I’ve noticed a go-to reference you use quite often – “we were taught”

I wouldn’t advise falling back on a shyster of a teacher

We really don’t know what went on in Paul’s mind

So_crates is right – it also looks to me like your attempting to force a tenuous theory onto the given facts – and it won’t fit!

Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.

That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.

 

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

aps

I am repeating here but this is important.
 

What you wrote is almost true.  Here is it's correction:
...the ability to decide is what "the free will debate" is all about.

The debate is about whether a particular decision was made freely or not. 

Is a decision made free of all influences, completely on one's own volition?

Or is that decision made by force of the synapse set just prior to the decision?

The synapse set is ALL the lifetime of learning and experiences prior to the decision.

 

And I will repeat, God does not use force, therefore the decision was made freely hence free will.

[WordWolf]

50 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

 

All the many factors you mentioned are included in my #2's "...synapse set just prior to the decision"

All those things can pack a powerful punch in forcing behavior.

No, it was a False Dilemma as posted.

Although it is not outside the realm of possibility that you're just that awful at communicating, and are continually misunderstood,

I'm going with "I got caught making a mistake, so I'll rephrase myself and claim I was misunderstood instead, and the fault is in the reader instead."

Since you've previously VOLUNTEERED to us that you "dodge, distract, but never admit an error is an error,"  it's more likely just more of the same.

So, you're making lots of mistakes, admitting to none of them, and keep insulting GSC'ers who understand and catch you on each mistake, pretending they're the ones making the mistakes.  if you're trying to convince us you're really up on Psychological and/or Psychiatric thought, you've a long way to go (and probably won't get there.)

[So_crates]

52 minutes ago, Mike said:

 

 

All the many factors you mentioned are included in my #2's "...synapse set just prior to the decision"

All those things can pack a powerful punch in forcing behavior.

Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will. You an always choose to go counter to influences. An example of that would be Nazi Germany. Despite the influences of propaganda, some people chose to act against Germany.

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, So_crates said:

And I will repeat, God does not use force, therefore the decision was made freely hence free will.

Ok, I can go with that wording.

I believe natural men HAVE a type of free will, but I don't believe that free will has all the attributes of the classical definition of free will.   It is weaker and it operates differently than expected.

[waysider]

1 minute ago, So_crates said:

.synapse set just prior to the decision"

scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo.

[So_crates]

19 minutes ago, Mike said:

His free will was spread out in the days and months before he set out on the Road to Damascus. It can be seen in what he allowed to lodge in his mind.  He must have been thinking about what Stephen said, and he also heard witnessing from the people he persecuted.  All those influences were accumulating prior to his final decision to believe and act on the Word.

And all this has what to do with his freedom to choose?

[WordWolf]

11 minutes ago, Mike said:

Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.

That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.

 

Incorrect- just Mike unable to get past the polarizing influence of black-and-white thinking. 

Some of what vpw stole was good material from good people.

Some of what vpw stole was not- and vpw was unable or unwilling to tell the difference.

Since he was just copying over, he likely didn't understand a lot of it and just bluffed a lot. After that, people came along and cleaned up his work, corrected him, or constructed elaborate covers that hid how bad a mistake he'd made.

One problem was when a good person- like Bullinger- made a big mistake, and vpw was unable to tell the difference.  (Bad material from good people.)  Furthermore, sometimes the material was bad and came from bad people, and he couldn't tell that, either.

Since vpw was cobbling together an inferior theology from diverse sources, these were an obvious risk- and were an obvious outcome.  It was theoretically possible for him to construct a serviceable theology using eclecticism- but it required a better eye than he had, and harder work than he was prepared to do.

Cognitive dissonance is what one gets running into a big pile of vpw error, then trying to spin it into some secret truth hidden by God Almighty.

[So_crates]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

Ok, I can go with that wording.

I believe natural men HAVE a type of free will, but I don't believe that free will has all the attributes of the classical definition of free will.   It is weaker and it operates differently than expected.

Again, you're wrong.

God gave us free will because he didn't want robots.

Your definition of determinism narrows us to exactly that. Not people that make choices, but machines reacting to the latest stimulus.

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

-Bone said:

T-Bone - To me you’re talking in circles. You say you’re only talking about the natural man’s mind/free will - and not using PFAL criteria. So what reference points are YOU using to determine your postulates?

I am limiting my analysis to the most simple case: natural man.

This is a different focus than most of PFAL, but it is not not forsaking what I learned in PFAL.  I mentioned right after chapter 1 that there were only 3 details I am aware of PFAL mentioning free will, and I am aware of no such details in the Bible. I  use NONE of the PFAL postulates in the theory, but I do use use standard scientific postulates.

Here are the 3 PFAL points I keep in mind and respect in my theory:

1 - FW is not supernatural or spiritual. It is a biological function that even natural men have, and need to believe Romans 10:9

2 – You cannot control the thoughts that hit your mind, but you can control whether or not they can lodge there.

3 – Loss of muscular control is not good.  We use our FW to move our muscles, lips, and throat, as we were taught how to SIT.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - also, you seem to be drawing a hard line of distinction regarding free will in the natural man and free will in a Christian - why? What difference does it make regarding free will in either person?

*Spirit makes a big difference.  It is an addition avenue for learning.  It is supernatural, so it cannot be included easily or well in a natural handling, which is what science is.

Not having spirit is a much more simple situation. Once free will in the simple natural man is understood, then we can move on to the situation that includes spirit.

That is the normal way to do science: take the most simple possible case first, and then build from there.  

You would be amazed at how much of Physics is built on top of a simple pendulum swinging on a string.  The math from pendulum analysis shows up almost everywhere, including quantum mechanics.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - What are the  physical / detectable / measurable evidence or signs that you think should motivate “laboratory scientists “ to investigate further?

The simple astonishing fact that I can show them a DETERMINISTIC mechanism that supports some sort of freedom in decision making. I mention this in the text.

I am offering something they have never seen: a nuts and bolts way that humans can have a freedom in decisions, that looks like a weakened and delayed form of the mystical form of free will that has dominated Western thought for 1000 years.

The kind of free will that I am suggesting is the first kind that CAN POSSIBLY be Biological.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

T-Bone - If your goal is to offer PRACTICAL tips on free will for “non-scientists” - then can you describe what your target looks like? 

Not yet.  I haven't thought that through very much.  I do see that persistence is key in successfully operating minFW.  I tip people verbally about that already.

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - What would be the benefit to the natural man’s mind? 

I think once minFW is verified, or something like it, then brain damage victims can be helped better if there is a theory behind free will helping health care workers restore brain functions.

As I mention in Chapter 1, victimization is overwhelming our culture, and that sounds like a partial loss of free will to me.  I think my theory can help natural man to have MORE free will and make better decisions, including believing in Jesus someday.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - What information do you have that will inform / enhance the natural man’s mind / free will in a hands-on situation?

Love, both phileo and agapeo.

 

*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*

 

T-Bone - If your aim is to provide a viable solution to a problem- then what specific successes have you achieved so far in your experiments?

*Since this is theoretical biology in a sense, the first success is getting another scientist to invest a little time in thinking it through.   There are a lot of researchers looking at things like "mirror" cell circuits in the brain that seem to be involved in emulation, and this minFW theory has emulation at its heart.

What I am doing is saying that there CAN be a deterministic way to achieve the freedom that is needed for a biological animal in life. 

Up until now serious free will advocates have been looking for ways AROUND determinism in order to explain free will.  That means they lose the attention of 95% of all laboratory researchers who depend on determinism every move and every hour.

I have an attention getting story in that minFW is 100% deterministic.  That means to Biologists that it CAN possibly be correct.  It isn't dismissed outright for being indeterministic.  I mention this in the text also.

 

uhm,,,nope...bunch of baloney

I would like to apologize to my eyeballs and brain cells for using vital resources to look over this nonsense 

Grrrrrrr you don't listen!

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will. You an always choose to go counter to influences. An example of that would be Nazi Germany. Despite the influences of propaganda, some people chose to act against Germany.

"Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will."

No.  There are two different kinds of decisions we can make.

When I decide to sign a contract I use my free will.
When I sign the contract, I use my cerebellum, and it is a robotic reflex.

If we had to use our free will all the time I think we'd run out of gas fast. Robotic actions with no free will are often fine.  I have a whole chapter on this.

*/*/*/*/*/*

"You can always choose to go counter to [strong, evil] influences."

YES.  But the only way that can happen is if you harbor good counter-influences in your synapse set. We call a harboring of good counter-influences "character."  Character gets built via many, many small free-will decisions (operating minFW) over a long time. It requires teaching of some sort, often teaching by example.

 

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

 

 

All the many factors you mentioned are included in my #2's "...synapse set just prior to the decision"

All those things can pack a powerful punch in forcing behavior.

more baloney - goodbye

[Mike]

1 minute ago, T-Bone said:

Grrrrrrr you don't listen!

Can you pinpoint in a small post a point I did not listen to well enough?

[T-Bone]

56 minutes ago, Mike said:

No this is very new in the sense that it is the first theory of a deterministic free will.  All other compatibilist approaches, that I am aware of, try to go around or nullify determinism.  I think I am the first one to try and make friends with determinism, and I got that idea from Dennett. He never followed through on it though. 

If you can find another deterministic theory of free will, one that respects and uses determinism, I would drop everything to contact the author and learn it.

you've made friend with Kool-Aid that's for sure - I think you have your own recipe 

 

[T-Bone]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Can you pinpoint in a small post a point I did not listen to well enough?

review everything - review what everyone has said on this thread and review all the links everyone posted too

 

[Mike]

1 minute ago, T-Bone said:

review everything - review what everyone has said on this thread and review all the links everyone posted too

I plan to do that as I re-write sections of my chapters.

I appreciate your efforts to critique my theory. It is a lot to read. It is VERY new and revolutionary thinking I am doing here, so I'm sure it takes a lot of thought to try and follow it.

There were a couple of years where what I was building was so off the beaten path that I would occasionally FORGET it, or the key details to it, and I would have to read what I had already written on it again to review. It is THAT strange an idea, that I have had trouble with it myself. Now, after 9 years of discussing it, I think I got it.

So far no one has picked up on a key feature: that minFW is merely learning.

Did you understand that part in chapter 2? 

When people read and understood my theory in other forums years ago, they would be able to see that it was just learning and want to shoot down my theory on that point.  I strongly suspect all of you are not reading and digesting every word, but just skim reading and keying comments off other comments mostly, or common sense juggling of free will ideas.  My theory is VERY far from common sense. 

 

 

[Mike]

31 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Again, you're wrong.

God gave us free will because he didn't want robots.

Your definition of determinism narrows us to exactly that. Not people that make choices, but machines reacting to the latest stimulus.

I agree that God gave us minFW, and for that reason we can have both freedom, and when that freedom results in a decision, it can be delivered to the muscles and everything is acted out robotically in obedience to our will. 

We have both abilities, and both are good.  We have minFW and we can execute it.

I do not believe we have LibFW, or Libertarian Free Will.

There is a huge difference between Libertarian Free Will (LibFW) and Biological Free Will (BioFW).

My theory is that Minimalistic Free Will (minFW) is roughly equivalent to BioFW.

If you are not practiced at juggling all three of these free will varieties (LibFW, BioFW, minFW) then you have not begun to understand my 5 chapters.

 

 

[T-Bone]

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

I appreciate your efforts to critique my theory. It is a lot to read. It is VERY new and revolutionary thinking I am doing here, so I'm sure it takes a lot of thought to try and follow it....

... I strongly suspect all of you are not reading and digesting every word, but just skim reading and keying comments off other comments mostly, or common sense juggling of free will ideas.  My theory is VERY far from common sense. 

on the contrary - your thesis is easy to follow - in terms of understanding the individual points - but your coherency is crap, and it does not add up to a viable hypothesis

I don't know what you're trying to say...but when you talk about the "benefits" of your thesis in your posts outside your chapters - it reminds me of the ridiculous claims on the back of the green PFAL sign up card. I don't see what benefits one would gain from your gobbledygook...you're making claims that your thesis will accomplish but the actual chapters are made of nonsense that has no purpose

oh well, maybe back to the drawing board 

Edited November 8, 2022 by T-Bone
edit