Let's get physical

The Nissan pulsar is the same chassis and engine as the corolla and I can confirm that Cowgirl position doesn't work.

 

I'm going to reply only one last time since it's both a pointless discussion, and one offensive to magikot (somehow).

I don't deny (and I don't think anybody would) that the mind is definitively restricted by the brain. I would mention that I would've had a similar, if not identical, view to this (one especially consistent with what Smuel is saying); but it is not as easy to rationalize as you'd think, and I didn't realise that until I'd read a copious amounts of arguments for and against it by respected thinkers.

It is pretty much beyond doubt that emotions, &c., are correlated with reactions in the brain, but I would mention that the view that the emotion is caused only by the reaction would assume a physical cause for this reaction, and our ability to make ourselves feel happy or sad simply by thinking would imply that we have some control over these reactions, which itself cannot be correlated with a similar cause. I would have to agree with Leibniz (above) that, if we had no experience of thinking or seeing &c., we couldn't have linked it to the brain by observation alone, as (e.g.) a study of the phenomenon of what happens physically when we see, could not give a reasonable link to the immaterial phenomenon of sight - though this might be seen as an extreme example, I think you'd agree that it is undeniably true in the cases of emotions (i.e., observing a chemical reaction for fear in the brain without knowing that the subject has become fearful does not deductively link it to the phenomenon of fear, by its reaction alone). As I mentioned before, to admit that the mind is controlled solely by the brain (rather than that the brain affects and follows the mind), and that the brain is controlled by physical reactions alone, is to admit that the mind is subject only to material causation, and that we have no free will or choice whatsoever (even from a quantum viewpoint), since certain events happen either deterministically (large scale physics) or somewhat spontaneously (quantum theory) with neither affording any allowance for thought and choice (and therefore, free will and morality) based on their models alone.

I completely agree and think that this is probably the most meaningful thing said so far.





Smuel,

It would seem that you're arguing that the mind is a by-product (or the definition) of only neural reactions, and you have admitted yourself that this is indemonstrable (since a wave is just a definition of a certain state, and isn't an immaterial construction of water molecules in that sense, and so is realized by its formation), whereas I am unconvinced either way, mostly because of the difficulties arising from either point of view (expressed above), and unless I can have described to me, a mathematical or physical relation between mind and body and a resolution of these difficulties, I express no opinion of the validity of either point of view, except that, as they stand, each has its own difficulties.

 

I never said it was offensive, I'm just sick of hearing it.

 

Don't read it, then.

 

You appear to have mixed up cause and effect. The pattern of neural activity that corresponds to "happiness" would always have a physical cause at the root of it. In your head it may feel like you are thinking about a happy memory, but that does not mean that your "abstract memory" causes the "physical happiness". Neural activity in one part causes neural activity in the other - the labels of "memory" and "happiness" are just convenient shortcuts because they correspond more directly to the experience on a human level.

I've never understood this argument. Just because brain activity can be reduced to the deterministic activity of neurons, philosophers suddenly throw their hands up in horror and say "This means we have no free will!" I can't imagine what kind of screwy definition of free will would be required to result in this. Just because some theoretical supercomputer with a snapshot of my brain and all its subsequent sensory input could predict what I was going to do, it doesn't make it any less "my" descision when I'm choosing what to have for dinner.

 

Y'all throwing big words around here I'm a gonna start taking offense you hear?

 

Man, you crazy...

 

We're all just physical constructions, nothing more, nothing less.

Yep.

 

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sure convinced; but of course, that's not up to me! That was always going to happen!

 

Ya see folks, there are two ways of having an online debate: one is endlessly throwing walls of text at each other with neither of the sides being convinced by the other, while the other one is writing less than a full line of text in total and having even Wayne agree with you. Damn I'm good.

Everyone is now allowed to put the following in their signatures:

 

Based on the same principle as above, anybody may also put the following into their signatures (though whether they do it or not is apparently pre-determined; thus, they cannot but do what that fixed event is; and so, I cannot help but write this, since its being written or not was pre-determined, and it has been written, so it must have been always going to be!):

Now, pardon me while I go to commit several crimes and plead determinism, and argue that since I'm just a compound of particles and all my actions are determined, it makes just as much sense to hold me responsible for what I did as it does to hold the bullet who shot that hoe responsible for what it did!

 

You'll free to do so and argue that and you will be in fact correct. Still, you will be convicted - not because you supposedly consciously did something "wrong", but because no punishment would determine more crimes while a harsh punishment would determine less crimes in the future and society, thinking it can determine anything at all, is determined to lean towards the second choice in order to avoid self-destruction.

Determine determine determine.

Now, with that out of the way, time for some good old fashioned pre-determined fun:

Also, did you know you haven't said "penis", "cock", "sex" nor "vagina" a single time? Come on, that's no fun at all. You want your internet licence taken away from you or something?

 

I completely agree, since consequences can affect people's choices about whether to commit crimes or not! However, seeing as choice presupposes freedom to choose any possible path, and freedom to choose any possible path presupposes an agent's ability to make a selection which is not absolutely determined by any outside influence of force, the justice system is not the justice system in a determined universe, and does not, of its own accord, determine actions, since those actions were already determined by the same determiner that determined the actions of the determined injustice system! Better prosecute that bullet so all its buddies know not to fuck with the law!

e.g.,

No I won't!

Nevertheless, I surely win for the last one and was always going to!

 

Society acts like if it would exist in a non-deterministic universe because as a whole it isn't aware of the universe's deterministic nature, which is fine with me, seeing how otherwise it would most probably fall apart. After all, there is no good nor evil in a deterministic universe, and just exactly how long would we actually continue to breathe if every single person in our vicinity knew there is no right nor wrong and that non of his actions are his fault.

 

I hope I don't seem to arrogant in pointing out the fact that your argument contains a contradiction of itself:

You appear to believe that, were we to realize (like you have) that none of our actions are our fault, we would then begin to choose to do things knowing that they are not our responsibility. The possibility of this happening is dependant on a non-deterministic universe, because people couldn't choose to do things that aren't their choice.

Also, on the point of good and evil: I don't see how the non-existence of good and evil is logically determined by a deterministic universe, since it could be imagined that, if we are 'in our heads' and just going along for the ride (imagine having the knowledge that you were being controlled, like John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich, if I remember correctly), and knowing since pain and pleasure can be inflicted on you and by your body, empirically, then it is not impossible that, for definitions of these concepts based on that scenario, good and evil can exist in actions, but not in people.

 

I don't see the contradiction. I'm not following you fully, though, but I'd like to so I'll give it a go.

The above is a "A because B" statement. Here, I don't see how B would determine A, but maybe it's because I don't know what you meant by B and how it is related to what I said before. So:
"people couldn't choose to do things that aren't their choice." - Care to rephrase?

Nicely put, there. Though the executor of an action himself didn't have any choice but to perform it, therefore he isn't to blame or praise, the action itself can be more or less objectively classified as good (helping those in need) or evil (setting a baby on fire), yes.

Now, there are other reasons I have doubts about the existence of good and evil, but I think I will agree with you here that determinism alone doesn't rule out good and evil.

 

Just to be clear (and I'm attempting to be descriptive; not prescriptive), A because B is logically equivalent to B proves A (B ⊢ A). B is the conjunction, People can't choose to do things that aren't their choice and determinism negates choice, and A is, The possibility of choice negates absolute determinism. B could also be rephrased (in the context which it was originally written in): Determinism removes the possibility of choice and people therefore cannot choose.

So, for there to exist choice, determinism cannot be absolute:

If something is determined, it has already happened, is happening, or shall happen: it cannot but occur.
Choice is based on knowledge, and determinism supposes a fixed event in spacetime, which no knowledge can affect the outcome of.
Therefore, no knowledge can result in an event of its own accord, and no choices can be made,

or similarly,

Choice depends on knowledge and freedom: C ⊃ (K • F)
Freedom does not exist: ~F
Thereby, the conjunction knowledge and freedom does not exist: ~F ⊢ ~(K • F)
Therefore, choice does not exist; and knowledge does not affect: {[C ⊃ (K • F)] • ~F} ⊢ ~C

People cannot act but in the manner in which they are acting, by determinism; and they cannot help but do what shall be done, from determinism; thus, no event in spacetime, according to determinism, can produce a result of its own accord, since for the event to have been determined by absolute determinism, its 'result' would have to have been also determined by determinism.

 

Indeed, there is no such thing as choice in a deterministic universe.

Still, you can catch me using the word "choice" anyway, partly using it as a mental shurtcut, partly out of habit, just like I can be caught mumbling "For the love of God" when irritated even though I do not believe in one. After all, the deterministic nature of the universe is the last thing on my mind when I'm thinking whether I prefer a Mars bar or a Snickers (or none, or both, or two of one of them or whatever) when shopping, even though I know the "choice" I will make was always meant to be the one it will be.

The deterministic nature of the universe means that each action of a person, rather than to "I chose to do something because of knowing something" goes down to "knowing something caused me to do something".

Actually, knowledge does affect what we do, but determinism also supposed fixed knowledge of a person at a given moment. A person will have no choice but to know or not know something at a given time and to do or not do something because of that knowledge.

Now, while only one scenario is meant to happen, I don't know which one exactly is it. If I think person A is meant to never know about event B and try to go against "destiny" by telling person A about B, I will succeed at telling it but fail at fighting the system, for it was determined from the very beginning that I will tell person A about B while wrongly thinking that I can change the determined scenario by doing so. Any fight against the plan is part of the plan.

 

However, if you changed that concept into a real life determined scenario, it loses its meaning (something I had already thought of while writing the above post). When you say you're glad that people do not know the deterministic nature of things, you say it because people would then do what we would now call immoral acts, as it would not be perceived as their fault any longer; this would imply to me that you would be dismayed at such a discovery of knowledge, on another person's part, because of this occurrence.

If you translate your notion into an pragmatic scenario, it is akin to saying that you're disappointed that the thing I throw at you doesn't stop in mid air, and continues on to hit you. I would imagine that, in this case, your dismay, annoyance, or anger comes from the fact that whatever it was was thrown in the first place, not that it continued on its way, affected by momentum. Or if I played a shot in a game of pool, causing the ball to hit off the cushion and knock your ball away from the pocket, the annoyance you feel isn't directed at the collision; it's directed at the shot. Similarly, from your point of view, the fact that I threw something at you or beat you in pool was already pre-determined at the beginning of the universe; so your beef is with it, and not me, and you have no more right to be angry with me than you do to be angry at physics: the idea just doesn't make sense. The fact that you believe that this was also pre-determined, has no bearing on its truth, and may show that you do not believe your own idea as absolutely as you may think you do, since, as a child, you may be angry at something which is simply a mechanical device, and you do not realize it, but your anger is then directed elsewhere once your reason tells you that this device is simply mechanical, once you discover the fact, and this process is naturally occurring.

 

Alright, so Wayne is arguing for free will, Muro is arguing for determinism. Since I have dreams where I see the future, I believe in determinism, and hence, that free will is an illusion. This doesn't keep me from exercising my own "free will," and therefore making "choices," but I know that in the end, everything is predetermined and my fight to change the future is for naught.