Simple debate: Free will or determinism?

The only ‘right’ answer is we know absolutely nothing for sure…so, that renders my input virtually useless.

I could ignore this entire question. I CHOSE to comment.

@rpmpseudonym Assuming you have choice and not just a list of possibilities which your cognitive architecture picks one out for you based on a library of past experiences and interactions with the world.

@Coloma Yes, ultimately this debate is pointless. But it is fun and makes you wonder more. As well as the fact that debates help strengthen your own views (albeit strengthening the opposition) and provides a richer and fuller account, I would still like people to try.

It’s just a shame that there could be a determination of the amount/type of people who reply to this thread.

Lol…possibility vs. probability….it’s still unfolding….we shall see.

( Watching silently from the wings. )

@Coloma If you mean my first line of my previous reply, in that case possibility and probablity are synonymous.

Now, now, don’t let negativity mess with the energy flow/ hahaha

@rpmpseudonym you had no choice but to comment. you had no choice but to say what you did because you couldn’t help but believe that you were right. you had no choice but to believe your comment was appropriate. you had no choice in the matter at all. evidently, it couldn’t be any other way.

I think there is quite a body of evidence suggesting that on the quantum level things are quite indeterminate. That exists in the Universe too. How do you incorporate that into your beliefs?

@dpworkin I have come across this before. I believe that it doesn’t matter at the quantum level what happens, but only that the effects of what happens is what matters. For after all, do people who believe in free will believe that quantum particles have free will?

@dpworkin random indeterminacy doesn’t suggest free will, it suggests an explicit lack of any kind of control.

While you seem to believe that the human mind is an exception, I concur! In humanity’s scientific quest to find an equation and a reasonable explanation for all occurrences, we still have many unanswered questions. The purpose of our existence, the seemingly perfect circumstances in which we live and the question of afterlife. All of these questions have answers that lie further than science’s reach. It is reasonable to conclude that everything that happens is destined to happen, this is not an original thought. There is a missing element of this discussion (be it Religion, purpose of exisistance or an answer to afterlife) that makes this question impossible to answer.

It has already been determined that this will be a closed discussion, possibility and probability have converged.

The pre-determined outcome can be re-visited via many other similar questions. lol

If we insist on slogging forward against this knowledge it is then completely likely that we, as a species, are doomed.

Oh wait…thats been pre-determined too! hahahaha

I’m not sure how the statement I believe that it doesn’t matter at the quantum level what happens, but only that the effects of what happens is what matters differs from any other statement of religious belief. How is that empirical?

I admit to being a fatalist. We can spin it but can’t substantially change it. Even if the particulars differ, the effectual outcome will be the same.
A child who laughs with wholehearted joy from infancy will likely be a successful, fulfilled person.
Oedipus probably didn’t laugh much.

@MetroGnome217 unfalsibility(sp?) makes the question impossible to answer, not what you mentioned. Just because science cannot explain it doesn’t mean it is unpossible. If something is so complexly interwoven it may be impossible to unweave in order to provide perfect theories in order to predict for example all human behaviour.

For example think of all the thinks that can determine one single action. All of these things will have varying levels of effects, and will interact with other things that we know.

I think the human is cursed with a big brain. We are all very simple beings, but we use our brain to think & over complicate things. What’s worse is that we have a mouth to spew our nonsense out at others with. Really, we are just like dogs. We eat, poop & sometimes want to play.

@Ame_Evil You were right to point that out. What I was trying to communicate was that this question is missing a vital component (which i mentioned) that makes it difficult to answer. Until we as a society can find an answer to this question, there will always be a mixed opinion

@MetroGnome217 i don’t see how not knowing the answer to those questions has anything to do with it.

@Ame_Evil “I am a hardcore determist. I believe that everything has a cause”

Cause is not, and does not lead to, determinism. Gravity is a cause. But gravity cannot determine where the spaceship will land. Tornadoes are a cause. But tornadoes do not determine which houses are destroyed. Temperature is a cause. But temperature does not determine which vegetables I put into the freezer.

Determinism must be determined. The only thing that can determine anything is a mind. We can determine these things by exercising our free will in deciding which things are to be determined and which things are to be left alone to cause and reaction. We can make precise determinations specifically upon our understanding of how cause and reaction works. We determine everything with code. Nothing can be determined without codified instructions to determine it upon.

The only way to determine if a thing has been determined or not is to uncover a code that illustrates the outcome before the action has taken place. If we find a code that predicted the outcome beforehand, then we must acknowledge that thing as determined.

BTW… the opposite of determinism is not free will. We exercise our free will by determining what does and does not take place with code. The opposite of determinism is random. Random is the absence of codified instructions. It is cause/reaction without a mind.

Having spent much too much time on philosophy today, curiously related though but on the moral aspects of the same debate, I’ll limit my 2-cents to this:

This argument is, until science and/or cognitive reasoning advance beyond their current state, fully unfalsifiable.

Furthermore…

Knowledge of past events is not a firm predictor of future events, as knowledge of the past is incomplete. Arguing that because gravity has always pulled you down when you jump it will continue to do so is a petito. And finally, observation alone is a weak method of accruing genuine knowledge. Just because I see a purple bowl does mean I understand “purple” or can accurately describe it in the true sense of it’s existence.

Anyway enjoy the argument, I’m always glad to see people taking an interest in philosophical debate.

Hmmm… I don’t really like to take a stance on things that I can’t prove, but I can’t help but think that determinism is rather convincing, and I ponder this question quite a bit. My reasons are similar to yours. I like to think about a hypothetical universe in which all that exists is a planet moving through space. We know exactly what will happen with that planet: it will keep moving forever at constant velocity. Newton’s first. Then add a star to that system. Things get more complex: you need to know the mass of both objects, their velocities, and the distance between them, but given this information, you can still predict their exact trajectories. Add another object and things get yet more complex, but if anyone were capable of knowing the right information about all the objects, you could still predict the future exactly. The true universe is much, much more complex than any of these examples, and although nobody could ever know all the information required to make accurate predictions, the information still exists and it’s conceivable that such calculations could be made to track the movement of every particle at any given moment in time. The Big Bang set every particle in existence off with an initial velocity and direction. Gravity and electrostatic forces took it from there.

The biggest problem with this train of thought is that it grossly oversimplifies things by looking only at things in a macroscopic sense. When I say that you could predict the exact trajectory of the objects in my hypothetical planet-star system universe, I’m only considering the effects of gravity between the objects. It’s possible that there’s something going on at the quantum level that has an unnoticable effect in the short term, but could seriously alter things after billions of years. Point is, looking at the big picture, I think determinism is fairly convincing, but considering the fact that nobody really understands quantum physics, I’m not ready to say that quantum weirdness couldn’t completely alter the results of my little thought experiment.

People conflate cause/reaction with Determinism. Unfortunate.

Determinism needs a mind to determine it. This is accomplished with codified description that predicts an outcome before it happens. No code = no determinism.

Determinism IS AN ACT OF Free will. They are not opposites to debate.

The opposite of determinism is random.

All thoughts go around in a mind full of thoughts and give only more thoughts as an answer.
answers to questions of Truth cannot be found through thought,
You can see the answer to your question, by viewing from the level of your awareness before thought takes form.

@babaji

Is there any empirical method for predicting, testing, falsifying, or repeating your opinion?

@babaji

I like that! It is true!

To the rest…notice in these discussions how miserly everyone is in giving a ‘great’ answer?

Thats ego for ya! lol

I give the great answer to babaji!

@Coloma

What is the criteria you used for claiming @babaji‘s opinion as “true”?

Well you see…this is where the waters always get muddied.

I have no measurable ‘criteria’ to present.

I just KNOW, from personal experience that what lies beneath thought is truth. It is a knowing that surpasseth all understanding. ( and no, I am not religious )

Thats why these discussions always tend towards discord, there are those that measure but do not experience, and there are those that experience that have no measure. And so it is.

Whenever someone asks me if I believe in free will or determinism, I always answer “yes.” Simply because our feeble little intellects are unable to reconcile the two does not mean they cannot coexist.

@Coloma

How is a “personal truth” any different from an “opinion”?

Without distracting from the OP, is there not benefit to acknowledging the difference between “personal truth” and “universal truth”?

No insult intended, I believe that opinions are quite valid. They seem to be the very mechanism that free will functions upon. However, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, and David Koresh all claimed to just KNOW. How can we KNOW when our knowing is not?

Because experience is not opinion, it is experience, and such cannot be conveyed worth a damn. I can no more share my experience with you than I can explain the color purple to a blind man.

I am not talking about personel truth, I am talking about the experience of universal truth.

It’s like an orgasm…you’ll know it when and if it happens, and as such…there are no words.

What does one base their opinions upon if not for the experiences they endured to form them? With all respect, I cannot fathom a single experience that is indescribable with words. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say, if it cannot be described, then it cannot possibly be. If it was observed at any level, then it must be describable to some degree. Unless of course, it was merely a feeling. It that case, purely chemical in nature. A reaction to a cause. Emotion.

I have no problems with understanding that our paths are different and so also must our experiences be. How will I “know” an orgasm apart from a heartache if it (or both) is indescribable with words? What other mechanism would qualify the differences?

Lastly, is not your experience of universal truth a personal truth? Not that I’m doubting you. I only note that I did not share that experience with you. Thus it is personal to you alone.

What got my attention to your GA for @babaji, was how quickly you agreed that the answer to this question cannot be known beyond enduring the same experience that the both of you seem to have encountered. Do you honestly believe there is no other valid method for addressing this issue of Free Will vs Determinism? Does this “truth before thought” position hold true for all questions in general, or just this one specifically?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies

I resonate with wisdom…I saw wisdom in babaji’s reply.

I beg to differ however with there being words for all experience.

Words are merely pointers, they are not the experience themselves.

The word carrot is not nearly big enough, descriptive enough, to convey the totality of the carrots carrotness.

Even saying the experience is indescribable is a lo-fi description of the experience.

If you saw wisdom in babji’s reply, then can you describe what wisdom looks like? You saw something. You called it wisdom. Will you please define wisdom so I can understand what you saw. Will it turn out to be the indescribable?

When there is no measuring tool for making an accurate mathematical description, we rely upon the metaphor, allegory, and simile of poetry and parable. There is no short coming of language to describe anything. It’s never equal to the object/experience itself. It may come up very short indeed. But something can always be said about it.

I have experienced what I call “Infusion of Essence”. It was for me alone. It was not for you or anyone else. I am tempted to claim it as indescribable. But I will not, for what that really suggests is not so much that it is indescribable, but instead that you are incapable of understanding it in the manner that I do. I could not understand your “Infusion of Essence” nearly to the level that you do either. It was not for me.

These experiences are often best left as not described to others. We fear their temptation to pass judgment upon that which they are unqualified to do so. It’s easier to say that my experience is indescribable than to actually describe it and have it dismissed. These experiences are not to be dismissed so easily.

But that does not make them indescribable. We would not be capable of considering these experiences even to ourselves if we had no language mechanism to consider them upon.

I describe two of my such experiences as “The Cry of Truth Molested” and “The Song of Truth Rejoicing”. There is the first line of description. You may judge and wave it away if you like. It matters little to me. It will not prevent me from describing the experiences further, of which I have thousands of pages describing these indescribable experiences, if only to myself.

If Martin Luther King had ended his career with “I have a dream”, then sorry would be the fate of equal rights. Yet he insisted upon describing that inconceivable dream to others. He was shaken to his core as much as Gandhi, who through description of an awakening, changed a nation.

Regardless, please answer my direct question to you as stated previously. Again, aside from @babaji‘s comment, and your own experience to confirm his comment, “Do you honestly believe there is no other valid method for addressing this issue of Free Will vs Determinism? Does this “truth before thought” position hold true for all questions in general, or just this one specifically?”

The wisdom that truth is not contained in thought, that thought begets more thought.

It is in stillness of mind that truth is revealed.

Be STILL and know that ’ I am.’

Thats all you’ll get from me, I have stayed longer than I planned…these discussions are always so predictable. ( Not said with malice, just an ‘observation.’ lol )

The Cry of Truth Molested is only heard in silent stillness as well. It tells me that Truth is Thought. Thought is Information. Information is God. The Cry of Truth Molested says “I Am”.

Truth always answers me. You have refused to answer.

Honestly, this question made my brain hurt. I guess I’ll resond in the way of explaining how I see the difference between free will and determinism.
I feel that choices are presented to me and it’s up to me to make the one that I feel is the better or the two. For me, imagining that there is absolutely nothing that is guiding or leading me is absolutely terrifying. This is not in reference to any being or personified image. I’m talking about forces. I feel like an old soul, maybe it’s because I had to mature quickly to adapt to my environment, but I’ve never felt the same age as my peers.
I imagine that I’m working towards my at-one-ment and that choices are being presented to me that affect how I will be in my next life, heaven, whatever you want to call it. I think it’s 50/50 between free will and determination. It’s hopeful and it gives me something to strive for. If it’s all one way or the other, to me, that’s way too much for me to handle. I hope that helps.

Despite pleas to keep feeling out of it, let me start by saying it sure “feels” like we have at least some free will.

But I think the very first answer @Coloma gave is spot on. And great answer to @rpmpseudonym for a good laugh.

No, we do not know that everything in the universe is causal. There is work underway in quantum chaos to see of the decay of a radioactive isotope is causal and its indeterminate timing the result of a very complex dynamical system, or is entirely stochastic. To date, the later is what we think is the case. So the whole of quantum mechanics may turn out to be non-causal. Think about how that would upset an already imbalanced dynamical system like the human brain. —No, dear reader—don’t. For your own good, don’t spend much time thinking about that. :-)

I suppose there is as much possibility that there is a human soul as there is possibility that there is a creator. But we are dealing here with things that are provable. Human self-awareness appears to be an emergent phenomenon. As such, it is not necessarily bound by the deterministic laws of a macroscopic level. It could just as easily function at a quantum level, or span both.

I strongly believe in free will. Deterministic arguments rely on free will being an elaborate, universal illusion. While it is possible that this is true, it would require an almost deliberate construction of the illusion to keep people convinced that they possess free will. What purpose would be served by our brains mimicking decisions, when the decision making process does not need to take place? It would be a waste of processing power and energy if all that was required was a more complex version of a reflex arc. Superfluous traits are eliminated from the gene pool by evolution, so a human brain that could react to circumstances quickly would be favoured over abstract thought and deep contemplation.

Ultimately there is no proof within current understanding, because we cannot separate time into multiple strands to see if it were possible for a different reality to eventuate. I admit that it is difficult for me to reconcile my strict materialism with the idea of free will, but I suspect the answer lies in neural feedback loops or some similar processing unit.

Edit: I do not believe, as some others here appear to, that quantum mechanics holds the answer. The brain has many mechanisms to filter out quantum noise (the term we use for quantum probability when dealing with macroscopic systems), so any influence held by quantum mechanics would only contribute to defects such as hallucinations and errors in memory relays.

Ok heres some scientific evidence….. for determinism.

There has been studies conducted (usually they are to find a relationship between cognitive tasks and brain activity driving etc) that show that half a second BEFORE we knowingly decide to do something, for example push a button, our brain has taken the necessary actions to make that decision a physical event.

They did this in one study by getting participants to sit at a computer screen with a EEG cap on their heads, measuring activity in the brain. the participant is then to press the space bar when ever they want….when the brain activity data is reviewed it is found that on average, neurons are firing for the button to be pushed 0.5 seconds BEFORE the participant knowingly decided to push the button.

I guess we can draw the conclusion from this is that when you make a decision, “you” have already made it….we are basically living half a second in the past, living out decisions that have already been made.

hmmmmm…free will is an illusion? maybe we are all bound by complex biological processes? ...but I guess our thoughts have to be produced somewhere, from something, they don’t just appear in our head out of nothing.

I’m not sure I understand what that experiment is setting out to prove or suggest. I’m familiar with it as well. I’m also familiar with those who use it to promote a form of determinism.

All it suggests to me is that our free will decision making ability begins earlier than we previously thought it did. I mean, do they really expect me to believe that my “knowing” is based upon my hand movement? Or my ability to claim that I know? It seems quite normal to me that an EEG would register brain activity before the body can express that activity into a physical action. I don’t understand how that challenges free will.

Again, I say that Determinism is AN ACT OF Free Will expression. They are not opposites to debate. The opposite of Determinism is Random, not Free Will.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies yeah, I agree…I just thought it was an interesting study to throw into the debate….

I for one think that I have free will…..and that it exists.

i love the spin you put on it, @j0ey. i only heard it explained from the free will perspective. haha.

determinism says all decisions come from somewhere, not from no where and if they did come from no where, then they wouldn’t be yours anyway!

@j0ey Although I am not intimately familiar with that study, I think it has a common methodological flaw. It is relying on the assumption that there is a specific point at which our decisions are played to us on some sort of screen that is our consciousness. However this is a remnant from Cartesian ideas. I know of no evidence to suggest that consciousness is a single-stranded event. You cannot pinpoint a particular point in time at which you become conscious of something. One strand of consciousness may be aware, while the others are not, and it takes half a second for the data to move from the initial strand to all the others.

@FireMadeFlesh The non-existence of free will doesn’t require an elaborate illusion. It appears to be an illusion because our perspective gives us the feeling that we are determining our future. Free will is all based on the idea that the mind is somehow completely separated from our environment.

No person is separated from their environment. What we call the mind is constantly being influenced by the environment. What we call the mind is not self-contained; it is formed through experience with the world. Mind is a term we’ve come up with to describe what goes on in an individual. The classification of mind causes us to believe that it is somehow an entity separated from the rest of the world. Because we think of the mind as a sort of black box that takes in possibilities and spits out decisions we believe that the mind contains free will. However, the definition of free will is that the entity making the decision must be physically able to choose whatever the entity wants. Since the entity is not separate from the environment there are no real bounds on where the mind really ends so the definition of the entity that is to make the decision is ambiguous. Not only this but if the entity were to simply be defined as our common conception of mind then we can see through neurology that the outcomes of brain activity are caused by the orientation of neurons and the initial conditions.

An entity that supposedly has free will cannot not be unambiguously defined, and even if it were able to be defined, as soon as it is we can identify causal behaviors that determine the outcome of decisions.

RealEyes is right about one thing: what we tend to believe is free will is impossible without our brain being causal. This is the illusion. It’s really simple. You think you are choosing something because what you define as ‘you’ is determining an outcome but what you define as ‘you’ is bound by causal laws that do not allow any other possible outcome than the one that ‘you’ choose.

It’s not elaborate in the least; it’s a simple result of causality and definition.

@Ame_Evil As for evidence I’ll explain a few things that lead to determinism.

The first step is to establish that the mind is caused by physical processes. The brain is typically considered to be the carrier of the mind. It will certainly be different depending on environment, but for the most part we know that the brain’s neuron orientations cause our behaviors and thoughts. We know this because when the brain is damaged behaviors and thoughts are changed.

Next we need to show that the brain and hence the mind is dependent on causality. When presented with a stimulus certain neurons in the brain are excited and pass on signals to other neurons. Signals from one neuron to another are caused by a spike in electrical current that causes a release of neurotransmitters. These neurotransmitters cross the synapse and attach to receptors on another neuron. When the neurotransmitters attached to the neuron reach a critical level the next neuron will fire. These are all causal processes that are governed by physics and chemistry. Neuron

Now we need to show that the brain is shaped by environmental factors and experience. Certain aspects of the brain are determined through DNA. The inputs from your sensory organs to the rest of your brain are standard on just about every person; however, a large majority of your personality and perceptions are caused by your experience with the world. The brain forms networks of neurons through experience of the world. The network changes with inputs from the environment and with feedback loops within the brain. All of these changes are the result of causal processes of neuron dendritic branching, actions performed within the brain, and stimuli that are experienced. Without social stimulation the brain does not develop the kinds of thought processes thought common in all people. Feral children show a lack of social skills that are normally passed on through experience.

Finally, we should look at how decisions are made within a neural network. In a neural network the inputs from multiple neurons to another neuron are summed and if they exceed a certain amount the next neuron fires. This can be modeled very effectively in computer models. Studying the computer models of neural networks allows us to very effectively understand how outcomes are arrived at. Feedforward Neural Networks are very similar to how the brain behaves. Multiple final outcomes exist in a neural network, yet the network will only arrive at one final output from certain inputs in an entirely causal way. A self modifying neural network, like the brain, alters the different strengths of connections between neurons based on experience and usage. This means the output from the same network can be different depending on the experience and usage of certain parts, this too is a causal process.

From these observations we can clearly see that the brain is a physical entity bound by physical laws and is entirely causal. The orientation of neural connections are set up through interactions with the environment, DNA, and initial conditions. Thus the mind, being a product of the interactions of neurons within the brain and environmental factors, must then also be causal. If the mind is causal and dependent on conditions that existed outside of ‘you’ then there is no free will. As said before, even if you decide to try to incorporate QM into this view it just results in randomness added to the causal chain.

@Shuttle128 “Free will is all based on the idea that the mind is somehow completely separated from our environment.”
It doesn’t have to be. I agree that dualism is completely false, and that the brain wholly composes the mind, but materialism does not have to lead to determinism unless you already believe that the inanimate universe is deterministic. Free will is only part of some non-deterministic theories.

“The entity making the decision must be physically able to choose whatever the entity wants.”
The entity making the decision must be physically able to choose between a limited number of options. There only needs to be one viable alternative for free will to exist.

“You think you are choosing something because what you define as ‘you’ is determining an outcome but what you define as ‘you’ is bound by causal laws that do not allow any other possible outcome than the one that ‘you’ choose.”
Do the laws of physics require causality of all structures? As far as I know this has not been proven. You mentioned feed forward neural networks, but they are only one of many possibly structural arrangements. I do not yet have a model that allows for free will, but I am confident that it can exist.
Write my ideas off as the product of cognitive dissonance if you will, but I am not going to accept determinism until all other options have been explored.

“There only needs to be one viable alternative for free will to exist.”

there never seems to be a viable alternative.

@ninjacolin There are almost always viable alternatives.

prove it. give me one single example.

Testosterone!

@ninjacolin I was referring to having viable options to choose. We have options on a high level. We consider them—decide whether to marry this or that person, invest in this or that stock, or play what we think is our lucky number in the lottery. If you tried to discuss any of those decisions in terms of physics and brain chemistly, you would be instantly overwhelmed by the nearly infinite number of attractors affecting that complex and sometimes unstable dynamical system. You’d get into looking not just the subatomic particles of the brain, but all those in the food, and environment of all those involved in the decision, and ultimately to the background radiation of the Big Bang. It can’t be understood from a bottom-up view.

I can no more prove there is free will than you can prove there isn’t. We do not know enough about the emergent phenomena of self awareness to say whether it is free or driven about by chemistry and particle physics alone. If we ever succeed in building an AI machine that is truly self aware, it will be interesting to see if it just keeps executing the program we assigned it, or decides to reprogram itself.

“I can no more prove there is free will than you can prove there isn’t.”
i think there’s a trap in there somewhere. you’re accusing me of not being able to prove that free will doesn’t exist. but the problem is, i really think i can prove it (logically anyway).

“We have options on a high level. We consider them—decide whether to marry this or that person, invest in this or that stock, or play what we think is our lucky number in the lottery. If you tried to discuss any of those decisions in terms of physics and brain chemistry, you would be instantly overwhelmed”

Actually, I think this is very simple to do precisely, and please correct me if i’m wrong: Across time, an individual can be seen to have processed beliefs and given birth to new beliefs called conclusions. Consciousness represents the brain processes’ cumulative conclusions at any given point on the time line.

Viola!
Copyright © 2010 Ninjacolin of Fluther

“We do not know enough about the emergent phenomena of self awareness to say whether it is free or driven about by chemistry and particle physics alone.”

not true, physics and chemistry is all we know of in the universe that ever drives anything! we know enough to employ the assumption that we’re subject to physics.

“If we ever succeed in building an AI machine that is truly self aware, it will be interesting to see if it just keeps executing the program we assigned it, or decides to reprogram itself.”

this is the libertarian fallacy summarized. It presupposes that we are operating in defiance of our programming.

I’d like to see you two in a chess match. Good grief…pistols cocked under the table!

@ninjacolin “There never seems to be a viable alternative.”
What makes you so sure? It seems you are still relying on the assumption that only events that eventuate are ever capable of occurring, and I don’t think this is necessarily a valid assumption.

Here’s an interesting piece of evidence in favor of determinism. Neuroscientists at MIT discovered that strong electromagnetic fields beamed at the brain’s “morality” center can scramble our ability to judge between one’s intentions and the outcome they produce.

Interesting article @ETpro. I’m not sure how it supports determinism though. I would note, as did you, that the magnetic field does not affect a person’s morality, but rather it slightly effects the focus of judgment, upon intentions or outcome. And they noted,

“It’s one thing to ‘know’ that we’ll find morality in the brain,” said Liane Young, a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article. “It’s another to ‘knock out’ that brain area and change people’s moral judgments.”

“The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend’s intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation’s outcome.”

“Young also points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn’t definitively prove that one causes another.”

But don’t get me wrong. I’m not arguing against determinism. As I explained before, determinism is an act of free will. So it’s difficult to even have this discussion with anyone who insists they are mutually exclusive, opposites, and something that can be intelligently debated. I think we’ve missed the boat on this. The opposite of determinism is random, and not free will. Determinism requires a conscious mind to express free will upon a codified thought… that’s right… Information.

Now, @Shuttle128 would have us believe that, “the mind, being a product of the interactions of neurons within the brain and environmental factors, must then also be causal.”

But there is yet newer research to consider. Just today, on NPR, a hometown favorite St. Louis researcher Wes Warren from Washington University’s Genome Sequencing Center was interviewed about his latest findings on the Zebra Finch appearing in this Months Journal Nature.

Warren has demonstrated a different mechanism than mere “interactions of neurons within the brain”. He seems to have discovered what causes those interactions to occur.

“We show that song behaviour engages gene regulatory networks in the zebra finch brain, altering the expression of long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcription factors and their targets. We also show evidence for rapid molecular evolution in the songbird lineage of genes that are regulated during song experience. These results indicate an active involvement of the genome in neural processes underlying vocal communication and identify potential genetic substrates for the evolution and regulation of this behavior.”

The implications of this are staggering, as “The zebra finch is an important model organism in several fields1, 2 with unique relevance to human neuroscience3, 4. Like other songbirds, the zebra finch communicates through learned vocalizations, an ability otherwise documented only in humans and a few other animals…”

We once again find another use for the so called Junk DNA. It seems that when the Zebra Finch expresses a DESIRE to sing, that desire causes a change in sequence of the “long non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcription factors and their targets.” And thereby, a change in that sequence, is the very mechanism which causes the “interactions of neurons within the brain”.

“Two of the cDNA clones that measured the most robust increases27 align to an unusually long (3 kilobases (kb)) 3′ untranslated region (UTR) in the human gene that encodes the NR4A3 transcription factor protein (Fig. 4a). The entire UTR is similar in humans and zebra finches, with several long segments of >80% identity”

“These findings indicate that this NR4A3 transcript element may function in both humans and songbirds to integrate many conserved microRNA regulatory pathways.”

“It has been proposed that ncRNAs have a contributing role in enabling or driving the evolution of greater complexity in humans and other complex eukaryotes32. Seeing that learned vocal communication itself is a phenomenon that has emerged only in some of the most complex organisms, perhaps ncRNAs are a nexus of this phenomenon.”

This supports my hypothesis, that nothing can be determined, unless there is a code to determine it upon. Code is a product of sentient authorship. It is the expression of mind. And what we find here, is that the mind is influencing the code, and the code causes the neurons to react.

Mind is separate from the Brain.

Then let’s see it do some code interpretation without one.

I hope you guys are all sitting back with brandies and cigars, seems so fitting.
Science curmudgeons. lol

Thanks for the link to the article, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies

So if I get a Zebra Finch to teach me to sing, any chance it will make me any smarter?

@FireMadeFlesh @ETpro Couterfactuals are not viable alternatives. Just because a different outcome exists that you consider doesn’t mean that the one you choose is not already predetermined by your brain’s configuration. We can think of different possibilities because we can understand abstract concepts like cause and effect. Because we understand cause and effect we consider what different actions we might take and what outcomes might result. Our brain uses something akin to a search algorithm to initiate an action that satisfies certain conditions based on desired outcome. This is what you call free will, this is what I call determinism, this is what RealEyes calls both.

I call this determinism because the outcome was predestined. I say there’s no free will because it is not an objective phenomenon. If I observe another person’s thought processes with a fMRI I could see that the thoughts resulted from the physical processes within the brain. Since the brain’s physical processes are all causal we can say that the thought processes are causal. Since the information stored in the brain (or elsewhere thanks for the link @RealEyesRealizeRealLies that was very interesting) as physical orientations of matter, the information processing that occurs must be causal as well. Nothing in the objective analysis of thought processes leads to any indication that any outcome other than the one chosen could have been chosen. From the perspective of the person making decisions he is observing possibilities and choosing one based on his preferences. This is the illusion of free will. The preferences cause the chosen outcome, the preferences are caused by previous states and environmental factors. You cannot have reasons for doing something without determinism.

@dpworkin

Welcome to the discussion that @Shuttle128 and I have been pursuing for nearly two years now. I think that’s right Shuttle, since Wis.dm days I believe we began this.

We’ve discussed (argued) many things, but it always seems to boil down to these issues presented here. And as both of us suffers the lengthy dissertations of the other, a surprising picture unfolds. Our perceptions of what a thing is, is often peeled away to reveal our semantic subjectivity. I believe I’m beginning to have this type of relationship with @ETpro as well. It’s certainly much easier to learn from one another this way. I think we’ve at least gotten past the ego of defending our positions from one another.

The Point I’m attempting to make here, is that we can approach Determinism in a scientific manner. I do not argue against the finch indeed needing a brain to “interpret” or “author” song. Same for human language and communication. What I propose is that just as when we see a ball drop, we infer the existence of an unseen force called gravity, then likewise, when we see a code authored, we therefor may confidently infer the existence of determinism.

I propose that nothing may be determined without a code to determine it upon. Your DNA determines your physical makeup. It is extremely precise and deterministic enough to distinguish the You from the Me and all Others.

The codified instruction of building a model airplane determine the outcome of the airplane far in advance of its physical manifestation. The codified grocery list determines what will be in your pantry far in advance of it actually becoming reality. My codified comments here determine the thoughts I choose to share with you far in advance of you reading them.

When we see a code, even a change in the ncRNA sequences, we can confidently infer that a change, a shift, an outcome… has indeed been determined by something other than cause and effect alone. And since I propose that all code arises from a sentient mind, we do well to at least consider concepts of mind over matter.

And this is where Shuttle and I find our biggest chasm between us. I do not deny the necessity of a brain. But I consider it as a medium, a physical medium that functions only to represent a non-physical mind. In the very same manner that words and letters are a physical medium that represent non-physical Information. They are separate agents that force us to consider the dualism of image/object relationships. They weigh the scales heavily in favor of the old phrase, The Medium is not the Message.

What @Shuttle calls Cause and Effect, I call Cause/Reaction.

I propose that Cause and Effect is not the same as Thought and Affect.

I propose that Cause/Reaction is not the same as Thought/Action.

Code arises only from Thought/Action. It brings forth an Affect, but it does not Effect.

@Shuttle128 We can think of different possibilities because we can understand abstract concepts like cause and effect. I cannot agree with that. While the brain’s activity is driven by things at the particle level, thinking in terms of protons and neutrons is utterly useless when trying to figure out what to wear, or eat. Our thoughts are almost exclusively devoted to symbols we develop and toss about blithely even though some represent things that are quite blurry when we try to define them.

What is a sleazeball, for instance. What sort of style amounts to tackiness? Hard as those concepts are to define to a small child, almost every adult English speaker has a picture or more reasonably thousands of pictures attached to each concept.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I am in this discussion not to defend a position but to learn. I know that I don’t know. I also know what falls short of proof in my eyes. It could be that our every act and thought and “decision” was predetermined from the moment of the Big Bang. Stated in such stark terms, that thought is pretty staggering. Makes you wonder, if you are convinced every single happening has a cause, what or who caused the Big Bang.

But it seems equally if not even more possible to me that human “I”-ness is an emergent epiphenomenon, and that when we measure brain activity we are no no more proving that the self doesn’t exist than we would prove that programmers don’t exist by measuring the EMF emitted by the machine they control.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I appreciate your holding forth for Code requiring prior thought. It’s an interesting question that I plan to dig more deeply into as time permits. Thanks to both of you for the stimulating views of the subject. It’s one that totally fascinates me.

@ETpro “when we measure brain activity we are no no more proving that the self doesn’t exist than we would prove that programmers don’t exist by measuring the EMF emitted by the machine they control.”

What a fascinating comparison. Upon these words, you shall be quoted.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I think the chasm that exists between us is what we take to be the ultimate constituents of the universe. I take that simple rules about the existence and interactions of matter and energy exist and that matter and energy abide by them. All information that exists within the universe is carried by states of matter and because of this are limited by the rules about matter and energy.

@ETpro I’m not saying we can explain everything about how the brain works by reduction. I’m saying that because the interactions within the brain are governed by causal processes, the thoughts themselves are, as well, governed by causal processes. I’m saying exactly what you just said yourself. We understand these complex abstract ideas because of the nature of neural networks. They give us the ability to generalize from specific instances. We understand very complex things through abstraction. Our brains create symbolic representations of things we observe, as we observe them. When we observe cause and effect (and we do in everything we’ve ever observed) it allows us to understand that our actions lead to consequences. Because we understand this cause and effect relationship we take this into account when choosing an action. We can contemplate the effects of certain actions and then initiate our actions based on desired effects. Without understanding cause and effect, decision making would be useless.

A search algorithm requires that several final possible outcomes exist. Each final outcome will be the result of different weightings. Although multiple outcomes exist, the algorithm that picks the outcome is deterministic based on prior weightings (weightings that were previously determined by other factors). The other outcomes are counterfactuals because the weightings that lead to those outcomes did not exist. You can contemplate these other options because there are control loops within the brain that allow your conscious thoughts to perceive and understand counterfactuals. We ask all the time what might happen if things were different. This is the kicker: without things actually being different counterfactuals cannot actually exist. We can think about counterfactuals because we understand causality. We can think about a mass moving through space at a constant velocity even if one does not exist anywhere in the universe because we understand the underlying causal nature of momentum.

@Shuttle128 “we understand this cause and effect relationship we take this into account when choosing an action.”

I am very careful to note the difference between “effect” and “affect”. They are not directly synonymous. Note I am not disagreeing with you. But this is an opportunity to illustrate the precision of the words.

@Shuttle128 “We can contemplate the effects of certain actions…”

You are right to use “effect” here as well. The “effect” of “action”... thus denotes “action” as the “cause”. And this is proper, but it does not deduce that “cause” and “action” are equals. Cause may come about from a mindless process, or a mindful process. The origin of “cause” may be from other causes (which are reactions), or from action.

A glass may tip as caused from an earthquake, or caused my mindful intentions expressed into action. Sentient beings may also be a cause.

In this manner, thought Affects action, and action Causes Effect.

Sure, action affects outcome, but if action is caused (which I very much believe) then causes ultimately cause effects. There’s no reason to believe the buck stops at action.

Agreed.

But something I left out. Although Action can be a Cause, and Cause lead to Effect/Reaction, and more Cause/Effect, Cause/Effect, Cause/Effect…

That chain of events will never Cause a Thought/Action. Desire is the origin of Thought/Action. And yes, that Desire could be to address a Cause/Effect, but that’s a choice to address it.

Action is not a Reaction.

And therefor, the multiplicity of an infinite source of Cause/Effect can be looked at as the pallet of which we choose to exercise our free will of Thought/Affect upon. One could say, as I think you have in so many words, that Thought/Affect could not manifest without a multitude of Cause/Effect to choose from.

Same old question. There must ultimately be an uncaused cause, or an original thought. One or the other.

Your response to my last post is an example of thought caused by a a chain of causes and effects. The thought didn’t come out of nowhere. It was caused to exist by the state of your brain and conditions that I affected you with by posting. Thought comes about through causes. Desire is a state in which your brain is in. Without my having responded, you would not have desired to reply. Action is very much a reaction as I see it.

Often I will have a strange thought pop into my head. When I become aware of these thoughts I always wondered how they occurred. For several years I’ve been making an effort to be aware of when this happens and trace back the thoughts. So far, every time this has happened I have been able to trace the thoughts to some external or internal cause. I have never experienced a thought or action (that I know of) that was not directly preceded by some initiator external to the thought itself.

The awareness of counterfactuals during a choice is simply your awareness of possible outcomes given differing circumstances. Your awareness of these counterfactuals does not alter the outcome in the least, in fact, it is part of the cause of the outcome that results.

A few things i’d like to respond to but i have to get to bed! Many good points were brought out on both.. uh.. all three sides.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, define “desire.” I don’t believe it is what you think it is. desire isn’t a part of the brain, for example. I know we’re arguing metaphors here, but I think it’s important. Desire is a conclusion. A belief. Specifically, your belief about what you prefer. To “want” something is to rationally conclude that something (or some set of things) is worth doing above everything else. What you call “desire” I would call “Preference.” But I wouldn’t want to give it any more credit than it deserves. Your preference or desire is still just a belief.

Across time, an individual can be seen to have processed beliefs and given birth to new beliefs. Consciousness represents the brain processes’ cumulative beliefs at any given point on the time line. – do you get what i’m saying with this?

@ETpro said: “when we measure brain activity we are no no more proving that the self doesn’t exist than we would prove that programmers don’t exist by measuring the EMF emitted by the machine they control.”
the programmers are limited to operating us only according to the laws of physics the our bodies are limited to. there is no evidence to the contrary.

@Shuttle128 So far, every time this has happened I have been able to trace the thoughts to some external or internal cause. I have never experienced a thought or action (that I know of) that was not directly preceded by some initiator external to the thought itself. Really? Amazing. My experience is quite different from that. I often go on seemingly untriggered flights of fancy. I got interested in what is “I”-ness from one such journey. If my experience were more like yours, my perception fo thought would be more like yours as well.

You mentioned that all we perceive has a cause. That is mostly so. But there is a great deal that goes on at the quantum level and as far as we currently know, that is not ruled by strict cause and effect but by a set of probabilistic laws. However, it is all happening at a level so microscopic that we indeed don’t see it. About the only exception is the decay of a radioactive isotope. And then there is the question of what caused the first cause.

@ninjacolin I am definitely not suggesting that the “I” in us is capable of independent thought. Rather, if it is an emergent epiphenomenon growing out of the marvelously complex neural network that is the human brain, it does all it’s work on that substrate and ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function. Whatever “I” am, I use a causal brain just as a programmer uses a causal computer.

The quantum state seems to also be affected/directed by observation.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Yes, it is indeed. Interesting point. How weird.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Here’s the problem with saying that quantum states are affected by observations: It’s not that the abstract concept of consciousness observing causes quantum decoherence, it’s the physical act of observing that does this. In order to observe something we have to have some causal chain of events that physically affects the object in question. If we were to use an instrument to check the state of an electron but did not look at the results the wave function would still collapse because the instrument must interact with the electron in some way.

@ETpro Statistical Mechanics was used to explain the overall thermodynamic behavior of large groups of individual particles in terms of probabilities. Even if the behavior of particles was completely deterministic the SM explanation still explains the behavior of large numbers of individual particles in probabilities. There’s no reason to believe that because large numbers of things are explained by probabilities they must not be causal. Besides, we know the cause of radioactive decay, it’s an isotope having an unstable nucleus.

Just because we can’t predict the time a specific atom will decay doesn’t mean we can’t explain why it decays. The stability of an isotope could be a function of quark states with time. When the particles within an atom reach certain states it could cause the atom to become unstable and decay. We cannot measure the states of these particles accurately because of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle so there is no way to predict when an instability will occur. Any measurement we try to make will make whatever data we get from measurement obsolete because we have disturbed the particles. In order to determine the difference between true stochastic randomness and chaotic randomness you would have to be able to accurately know and be able to reproduce the same states in atoms. We simply can’t do this. We can’t even tell if our solar system is completely stable. If it wasn’t we wouldn’t be able to predict when one of the planets might get flung out into interstellar space because we can’t predict accurately enough the positions, velocities, and masses of everything that would have a significant impact on the solar system’s stability. However, this doesn’t mean that the time at which that planet gets flung out is not determined or causal.

I would really suggest trying to trace back thoughts that pop into your head. I’m fairly confident that you would find that something always causes your thoughts. However, you have to have a memory of the things you recently thought for this to be effective. Some things can disappear pretty quickly from your mind when you don’t pay attention to them. A lot of things you experience throughout the day you immediately forget because they don’t have any significance to you. I’d expect your predicament has more to do with not remembering the things that triggered your thoughts. When the thoughts that caused others are not very significant they tend to fall away quickly. It’s a bit like trying to remember a dream after you wake up. It’s best to catch it while it’s fresh in your mind.

Here’s the science of Determinism:
The universe is predictable (rational is a characteristic of a thinking creature).
But to be deterministic it must be perfectly predictable. This means that whenever all the particles in the universe are in a specific configuration the subsequent configuration is perfectly determined and predictable.
A specific configuration of all the particles in the universe has never repeated itself so there has never been any irrefutable evidence that determinism is true.

highly inaccurate, @mystermenace. i must say:

a) you didn’t define “predictable.” says who that a deterministic universe must be predictable to humans? why are you willing to accept that a chimp couldn’t predict the universe, but that a human must be able to? sorry, but it isn’t a requirement of a deterministic universe that the first known creatures to have a discussion on the matter ought to be able to predict absolutely everything about that universe. especially since those creatures are so willing to admit that they aren’t currently aware of “everything” in the universe.

“to be deterministic it must be perfectly predictable.”

predictable to who?
and says who that it must be that way?

b) you don’t know whether or not a specific configuration of all the particles in the universe has ever repeated itself or not but regardless, said repetition is not at all what determinism would predict.

keep in mind: a deterministic universe MUST function in exactly the same way we’ve experienced it so far. if it does anything other than what we’re used to already, then you’re talking about a different universe all together. determinism must describe the universe as we know it.

@ninjacolin You raise valid objections, but I think what @mystermenace is trying to convey is that if everything in the universe was determined at its moment of creation, then it should be at least possible to understand the driving forces well enough that by carefully observing every particle we would then know all its future events. We are nowhere remotely close to being able to do that, nor do we have any proof it is possible. Determinist simply take it as an article of faith in much the same way theists take it that God is the prime mover who set the universe on its path, and can and does intervene to correct that path.

@Shuttle128 I do not accept that saying isotopes decay because they are unstable ends the discussion of their deterministic nature. If they are fully determined, then it should be possible to specify exactly when the decay will hapen, and what triggers it at its precise moment of happening. If there is any scientific proof that we will someday be able to predict the decay point of an isotope, or that there is no need to, because just saying it is unstable proves it’s somehow predestined to happen at a time we will never be able to predict, then I would appreciate your showing me. Till seeing that, I will choose to believe that the statement is an argument by reductive fallacy.

@ETpro “Determinist simply take it as an article of faith in much the same way theists take it that God is the prime mover who set the universe on its path…”

That is correct. We cannot claim determinism for anything that does not arise first from codified plans that pre-determined its existence. To claim it happened as determined, one must demonstrate the mechanism that it was determined upon.

If there are no plans to refer to, then it is impossible to claim that anything is determined. How would you be able to tell otherwise?

I create a set of instructions for building a table.

I build the table.

There is no possible way to detect if the table was determined or not without comparing my instructions to the table. It’s why Dawkins claims that Paleys watch could have arisen by random chance. But find the plans for building that watch, and the argument is resolved. Without the plans, all we may do is speculate.

_______________________________________

Again, just today on NPR, Antonio Acin of the Institute of Photonic Sciences in Barcelona supports my earlier statements that the only truly random things in the universe is “the nonlocal correlations of entangled quantum particles”.

That’s why I claim that energy and matter are just white noise.

From the article…
So that means that the laws of quantum mechanics say some things truly are random, like for example, the clicks a Geiger counter makes when it measures something radioactive. “Those are random, due to quantum mechanics,” says Christopher Monroe, Acin’s colleague at the University of Maryland.

Monroe took an atom of ytterbium (a soft silvery metallic element), which has “an outer electron that is very much like a bar magnet,” he says. “It can be north up or south up.”

“It turns out that quantum entanglement is very hard to come by,” Monroe says.

The reason for this is because observation will taint the results. May I put forth the vague hypothesis that observation and determinism are closely linked.

“This is where the weird properties of quantum mechanics come in. In this world, you can have a magnet that is pointing north and south at the same time, so long as you don’t look at it.“And when you do look, it randomly pops into one or the other,” Monroe says.

This is where I challenge Monroe’s choice of words.

Again, that nasty word random is being tossed about loosely. He should not have said that. What he failed to relate was that observation has determined that the atom will find a state. He calls it a random state only because he doesn’t know why it chooses North Up or South Up. But when he does discover why, he will then have a reason, and will no longer be capable of claiming randomness.

But the fact remains, observation determines the atom to land a state.

What’s interesting to me about this, is that observation is the very first step in the description process. And all descriptions are made with code.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Fascinating information. Thanks. On that, I think I need to let my brain rest a bit. :-)

@ETpro “it should be at least possible to understand the driving forces well enough that by carefully observing every particle we would then know all its future events”

um.. this is the case. we can and do accurately predict all relevant future events for the particles we are able to observe. for example, when you put the milk back in the fridge, the next morning.. the milk is there. it doesn’t turn into a unicorn. it doesn’t disappear without a trace.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies cool stuff.

@ninjacolin
a) I’ld bet you know what predictable means. I did define “perfectly predictable ” right after the words “This means”.
The universe should be predictable by a really smart outside observer.
What is your definition of determination that does not directly imply my example?

b) I assume that you don’t think that our universe has been expanding since the big bang, unlike just about every other physicist in the world.

To parphrase your closing comment:
If a universe doesn’t demonstrate determinism, then it’s not our universe.
Therefore, our universe is deterministic.
This is undisguised circular reasoning.
It’s not valid, anywhere, if in a deterministic universe.

@mystermenace said: “The universe should be predictable by a really smart outside observer.”

and since we don’t have a really smart outside observer to ask.. does that somehow prove that the universe isn’t deterministic?

@mystermenace said: “b) I assume that you don’t think that our universe has been expanding since the big bang, unlike just about every other physicist in the world.”

you assume incorrectly. i’m not opposed to the expanding universe conclusion.

@mystermenace said: “To parphrase your closing comment: If a universe doesn’t demonstrate determinism, then it’s not our universe. Therefore, our universe is deterministic. This is undisguised circular reasoning. It’s not valid, anywhere, if in a deterministic universe.”

I agree, your paraphrased argument (of mine) was invalid and failed to represent my intentions.

What i was saying was that our universe is what it is and I wouldn’t make up properties that don’t belong to the universe we know. For example to suggest that the universe ought to be more predictable than it already is.

@ninjacolin Come on—don’t debate by putting words (or in this case milk) in my mouth. :-)

I did clearly say we cannot predict when a radioactive isotope will decay. Given a really large number of atoms of the isotope, and given that they were all created at the same time, we can predict when 50% of them will have decayed—and we call that length of time their half life. But radioactive decay is a strange beast indeed. In another half-life period, half to the remaining 50% will decay, leaving only 25%. But that halving process keeps running, approaching 0% remaining, but if we start with enough atoms, never getting there. In fact, one atom of an isotope with a half-life of just 10,000 years might survive undecayed till the universe blinks out in the big chill billions of years in the future, if that indeed is its fate. It is a pretty significant leap from finding that stochastic behavior interesting to thinking milk turns into unicorns.

i don’t see why you think this is special at all. If I leave a Cup of bird seeds in a bird feeder, when i come back the next day some will be eaten and others won’t. the following day, some more will be eaten and others won’t… the seed count will approach 0, but 3 years from now, if i look in the feeder, i’m sure i’ll still find at least a few tiny seed that managed to elude all predators. perhaps by falling through the cracks of hte feeder, or getting shoved into corner.

so what? cause and effect still determined what seeds remained and what seeds got eaten or blown away or abducted by aliens.

@ninjacolin “so what? cause and effect still determined what seeds remained…”

That’s not determination. Cause and effect resulted in that outcome, but cause/effect did not determine.

Cause/Effect does not determine because cause/effect has no mind to determine with. It takes a mind to determine things. Just as your mind mistakenly determines that cause/effect can determine.

But cause/effect cannot possibly account for the free will agents of the bird’s taste or clumsiness, nor the desires of the seed stealing aliens.

“If I leave a Cup of bird seeds…”
You determined to do this with mind.

”...a few tiny seed that managed to elude…”
Seeds don’t “elude”. They have no mind to do such a thing.
We should not personify objects in these discussions.

”...the next day some will be eaten and others won’t.”
Because of the bird’s mindful desires combined with the resulting cause/effect of chaos upon the system.
The bird senses hunger, and determines that she will feed. Cause/effect did not determine to hide some of those seeds from her.

__________________________

Determination, IS a plan of action. To determine anything, one must first thoughtfully envision the end result before it ever manifests into physical reality. This process is called IN-FORM-ATION… The process of manifesting thought in-to-form.

We accomplish creating this plan of action by describing our thoughts with code. A codified description (even if only in our minds) is the only mechanism that can determine anything. After comparing the physical manifestation with the codified description, we may then (and only then) confidently assert a thing as Pre-Determined.

Cause/Effect can only result in. It cannot plan, it cannot think. Nor can it determine, or pre-determine anything at all.

Cause/Effect results in an end state of a system.

Thought/Affect determines an end state of a system.

@ninjacolin said:
“since we don’t have a really smart outside observer to ask.. does that somehow prove that the universe isn’t deterministic?”
and
“you don’t know whether or not a specific configuration of all the particles in the universe has ever repeated itself or not”
and
“i’m not opposed to the expanding universe conclusion.”
and
“I wouldn’t make up properties that don’t belong to the universe we know.”

A deterministic universe is perfectly predictable to anyone with perfect knowledge of it.
If such a being existed then it could predict a deterministic universe’s configuration from one moment to the next.
We must depend on empirical evidence.
The expanding universe explains how, counter to what you claimed, we do “know whether or not a specific configuration of all the particles in the universe has ever repeated itself or not”—not.
Since, as you agree, the universe has always been expanding, there has never been a testable case that would show that given a specific configuration of the universe the subsequent configuration could be predicted.
So my point stands: There has never been any evidence that determinism is true.
And that is why we shouldn’t make up properties that don’t belong to our universe, such as determinism.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies you’re completely ignoring the significance of time.

” To determine anything, one must first thoughtfully envision the end result before it ever manifests into physical reality.”

absolutely inaccurate. thoughts in themselves (for example, your thoughtful plans to build a house next spring) are the very product of the laws of reality. you never planned to one day start planning. you ended up existing without planning to. you ended up planning without planning to.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies: “Seeds don’t “elude”. They have no mind to do such a thing. We should not personify objects in these discussions.”

humans don’t plan to think they don’t think on purpose. they simply can’t help it. the full and proper view of this principal is: We shouldn’t personify period.

@mystermenace said: “If such a being existed then it could predict a deterministic universe’s configuration from one moment to the next.”

that being is the universe itself. it perfectly deals with and handles all the atoms in the universe with ease ensuring that each one gets where it needs to be according to the laws of physics.

@mystermenace said: “Since, as you agree, the universe has always been expanding, there has never been a testable case that would show that given a specific configuration of the universe the subsequent configuration could be predicted. ”

The expression: “The universe will have expanded wider in 10 minutes from what it is now” is exactly such a dependable prediction.

@ninjacolin said “that being is the universe itself. it perfectly deals with and handles all the atoms in the universe with ease ensuring that each one gets where it needs to be according to the laws of physics.”

Yes, the laws of physics continue, but now you’re saying that the universe intelliegently directs its own growth. Interesting, irrelevant response.

@ninjacolin said “The expression: “The universe will have expanded wider in 10 minutes from what it is now” is exactly such a dependable prediction.

So “ wider in 10 minutes” exactly describes a specific configuration of the universe.
Isn’t it better to remain quiet than to give such a ridiculously vacuous rebuttal.

well don’t blame me, your comment didn’t seem to deserve better than what i offered.
there are such things as physical constants, @mystermenace.

the existence of constants contradicts your assumption that nothing is predictable, that we’ve never seen determinism in action.

“Yes, the laws of physics continue, but now you’re saying that the universe intelliegently directs its own growth. Interesting, irrelevant response.”

we are a growth on the ass of the universe. deal with it.

@ninjacolin said: “thoughts in themselves…are the very product of the laws of reality.”

You’re taking great liberty in identifying and defining a new phenomenon. I’m interested though… So please explain clearly, what exactly are “the laws of reality”?

That’s a new one on me. Is this your personal concoction, or what, did you read about the laws of reality somewhere? What are these laws? And where do they claim that they are the mechanism responsible for thought?

And what exactly do you mean by “thoughts in themselves”?

Sorry to nitpick but I’m extremely confused about your comments. I’m hoping you can clear this up for me. It seems you’ve introduced a few new concepts here that I’m unfamiliar with.

@ninjacolin said: “humans don’t plan to think they don’t think on purpose.”

Now I’m really confused. Did you not plan your comments to me? Are your comments to me without purpose? Was New York City unplanned, rising from the marsh indeterminate, and without purpose?

@ninjacolin said: “We shouldn’t personify period.”

Then what is the “We” that shouldn’t personify… if not a personage? And how exactly is that thing called “We” to be classified any different from a rock?

@ninjacolin said: ”you never planned to one day start planning.”

Then what is the genesis of my short term and long term plans?

I (me, a person) plan on taking a summer vacation. My plan is to first set a date and location. Upon accomplishing my plan, I will then plan further the specifics of that journey. Shall I not bother, expecting instead for the vacation to plan itself ?

Shall I wait for “the laws of reality” to plan MY vacation for the ME that somehow isn’t?

Really, @Eyes, I think you realize what really lies behind the interpreted physics i’ve strangely philosophized.

“The laws of reality” was just my personal way of referring to the very common Theory of Everything. I wish i could take credit for it. ha. yea, it’s my personal theory of everything, but such theories are being worked on at the top ends of philosophy, science, and religion. Make sense?

“thoughts in themselves” – It’s an expression used for grammatical highlighting. That sentence should read: “Thoughts are the very product of the laws of reality” .. maybe i was missing a comma or something when i wrote it at first.

I’m planning my comments, but when I was 5 years old I didn’t plan to one day be sitting on a computer where I would be feeling like replying to you on a site themed with Jellyfish. Similarly, I didn’t plan to be born when I was, by my parents, or to speak my language. It all just happened to me against my will… and i’ve enjoyed it so far.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “Shall I wait for “the laws of reality” to plan MY vacation for the ME that somehow isn’t?”
“Shall I not bother, expecting instead for the vacation to plan itself?”

Your bothering is how the universe plans your vacation for you. It makes you want to. I mean what else are you gonna do? Stay home at stare at your walls? Planning your vacation is the smartest, most enjoyable thing you can conceive of doing. You have to plan your vacation. Nothing else will do.

@ninjacolin said “well don’t blame me, your comment didn’t seem to deserve better than what i offered.”

Refer to my previous final comment.

@ninjacolin said “there are such things as physical constants, the existence of constants contradicts your assumption that nothing is predictable, that we’ve never seen determinism in action.”

Did you ever notice that physical constants are only estimates. Working physicists will tell you that even they don’t know if “constants” vary or not, for example, at the 20th decimal place.

@ninjacolin said “we are a growth on the ass of the universe. deal with it.”

Speak for yourself. We seem to be from opposite ends of the universe.

“Working physicists will tell you that even they don’t know if “constants” vary or not, for example, at the 20th decimal place.”

oh would they? gee, @mystermenance, that sounds like a prediction you’re making, that my asking just such a scientist would result in some specific reaction on their parts.

but how could you make such a prediction.. unless of course if the universe functions in a significantly constant and predictable manner?

@ninjacolin Working physicists will also tell you that they don’t know if the probabilistic behaviors of particles at the quantum-mechanical level are purely deterministic, or truly stochastic. If stochastic, then the whole temple of determinism comes tumbling down, because at the lowest level of particle physics, what is pushing everything else around is doing so within some probabilistic realm of behavior, but not along a fully precharted course.

And there is one other challenge to the structural integrity of the determinist’s temple. That is the uncaused cause. How could the universe have existed eternally? If it did not exist eternally, what caused it to exist. What caused its causal agent, and so on in an infinite regression. An expanding universe could not have been here infinitely long in anything like its present form. Perhaps there is some as-yet-unknown cycle it goes through, and has been going through eternally. But the fact is we have no frigging clue how it really got started, or even if it ever got started or has always been. And to absolutely know that everything we observe is predetermined by the laws of physics, we must nail down the uncaused cause problem.

@ETpro i have to find a way to sweep you off your probabilistic footing. Probability is not material. It’s only relevant to human observations when human observation cannot see the causes for the effects being observed.

It is not fuel for the universe to function. It is merely a measurement of human certainty.

sorry for the double post. i clicked to fast

“to absolutely know that everything we observe is predetermined by the laws of physics, we must nail down the uncaused cause problem.”

doing so would certainly be an achievement but i disagree that it is necessary to find before you can begin to work with the deterministic understanding. determinism, structure, order across time.. these are implied by what we’ve discovered so far. there’s no reason to ignore them.

@ninjacolin You’re going to need a better broom than that. The lacuna in that argument is that it completely ignores the very real fact, physicists do not know if quantum events happen in a way that can ever be predicted fully, or if they are stochastic.

It doesn’t matter whether we can predict quantum behavior.

If quantum behavior is truly random then you still have no free will. You’re still a robot, only your programming is randomized rather than structured.

The only thing that matters as to whether or not you, @ETpro, have free will or not is whether or not you chose the eye color you were born with. That is a constant. It doesn’t change it doesn’t move around unpredictably. It was determined without your consent. All things that you consider to be facts, are things you consider to be facts regardless of your will for them to be considered facts or not.

Fact: You cannot choose in any given moment whether you happen to believe a premise is factual or not. This point is so significant. It absolutely demolishes any argument for free will.

We know his blue eyes are determined because we can refer to the genetic code. There is a code that proves this. The code existed before the blue eyes did.

All codes have authors

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Green, but touche.

@ninjacolin I can decide suddenly to do something completely out of character, just to prove to myself and the universe that I can decide such. I do that from time to time. I like to.

Realistically, I don’t even really exist. “I” am, as Douglas Hofstadter wryly observed, “a hallucination hallucinated by a hallucination.” And what makes the illusion of an “I“ness happen is the substrate that the I finds itself in, the human brain. And what makes the brain able to perceive, to form associations, build analogies and hold symbols for perceived analogies all happens down at the particle level. So whether particle physics is predictable or stochastic is vitally important to the discussion of what controls the “I”.

Rocks and Rivers have particles, yet they cannot “perceive” or express “I-ness”.

Given that Rocks and Rivers make use of the same particles that Brains do, there must be something else… or, something different that is done with the particles.

Here’s an idea…

Rocks and Rivers can reform the particles, but they cannot predetermine the particles to be a certain way.

Brains (Mind) can not only reform the particles, but can also ARRANGE the particles at a specific space/time coordinate. We call this arranging of particles… code.

And with that code, Brains (Minds)... _determine things… physical things

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies and @ETpro you both seemed to have ignored the two big facts I presented but I’m really interested in knowing whether you agree:
a) If quantum behavior is truly random then you still have no free will. You’re still a robot, only your programming is randomized rather than structured.
b) In a given moment (like right this instant) You have no control over what you believe is true, false, or uncertain.

@ETpro you can decide to do something out of character only because you want to spite the universe.. or because you want to prove to yourself that you can react to your thoughts.. in other words: you can only do things beCause of the relevant past that preceded it. You can’t do anything impossible. You can only do what is possible. That is what you are confined to. Counter examples: You can’t speak Japanese if you haven’t learned at least one Japanese word and how to use it. You can’t eat an apple that isn’t present. You can only do according to what the laws of physics permit you…

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies but brains (mind) are physical. They too are influenced by their environment. Like a rock under a waterfall, they are shaped by their experience. They don’t do what they want. They do what they’ve been programmed by their specific history to do.

@ninjacolin said “oh would they? gee, that sounds like a prediction you’re making, that my asking just such a scientist would result in some specific reaction on their parts.”
and
“but how could you make such a prediction.. unless of course if the universe functions in a significantly constant and predictable manner?”

Let’s see,
First, you don’t refute that the variability of physical constants is a problem for determinism.

Then, you follow with a lame comparison of universal predictability to human prediction.

And finally, you unwittingly agree to my basic premise by stating that the universe is “significantly constant and predictable” rather than perfectly predictable, again counter to the meaning of determinism.

Never mind, I thought you could handle an intellectual debate.

@ninjacolin “You’re still a robot, only your programming is randomized rather than structured.”

There is no such thing as randomized programming. Programming is accomplished in an extremely deterministic fashion. Yes, it can attempt to program for randomness (encryption), yet such a feat has never been accomplished completely. That’s why hackers thrive.

And A.I. is not random programming either. A.I. specifically programs for the ability to re-program based upon interactions with stimuli. There is nothing random about it.

Notice I said “interaction” and not “reaction”. Interaction is a thinking process. Reaction is not.

You want to use the word “be-cause” to justify all causes. That is erroneous.

Cause/Reaction is not equal to Thought/Action.

Cause/Effect is not equal to Thought/Affect.

@ninjacolin “brains (mind) are physical”

There is no precedent to support such a statement. To date, the existence of Mind has never been determined to be reducible to the mere physicality of the brain as a medium.

Consider that Brain is a medium used for the expression of Mind.

And the medium is never the message. Never ever.

CAT does not represent the letters C, A, or T. CAT represents something else, that being a four legged furry feline mammal.

Such is the relationship between brain and mind. They are not equals.

@mystermenace “you don’t refute that the variability of physical constants is a problem for determinism.”

you haven’t refuted anything i’ve said to you this whole time, why am i so bound to these rules all of a sudden but you aren’t?

none of what you’ve said is a problem for determinism. you’re simply dodging the main issues. if it was a problem, i would say so. i’m looking for a problem with determinism. you haven’t shown me one.

first of all, scientists being “unsure” whether there is variability in physical constants is not the same as there being variability in physical constants.
secondly, even if there is an amount of variability, then it’s just constant in a new way that humans haven’t figured out just yet. and maybe they’ll never figure it out!

It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t change the fact that you have no control over your own opinions in a given moment.

@ninjacolin Great point about trying to not believe something that I believe. I don’t accept that as definitive for purposes of this discussion, but it is an interesting fact that it would be difficult for a sane mind to deliberately disbelieve.

Whether I am causally determined or not, I do live in a universe with cause and effect in operation. I hold my beliefs because I have found reasons to hold them. So just deciding to not believe in air containing life-giving oxygen—to believe I can survive without any longer breathing—would fly in the face of things I know about cause and effect.

But I happen to be a person who doesn’t have a favorite color. I’ve never even been able to grasp what people are talking about when they ask for a favorite color. I think all color is beautiful. So if I went out to buy a new car, I could look over the lot and pick a color of the model and features I wanted totally by whim. I could pick one, then switch to another color just for a change-up.

On this question of free will versus determinism, the greatest minds in modern philosophy are still divided. You can believe one side or the other, but you cannot prove your case. The reason for that is that we do not know what we actually are.

Perhaps it is my agnosticism that lets me see this so clearly. Some believe that there is a God that created all, and that the creator imbued each of us with a breath of consciousness, or a soul, or a part of the creator. If that is true, then we do have free will. Others are certain that the universe is self created or eternal and self sustaining, and we are no more than an illusion—a hallucination hallucinated by a hallucination. If that is so, then we probably don’t have free will. And the truth is that while we can think we know which of those two creation stories is true, none of us actually know, at least not yet.

@ninjacolin: spews “you haven’t refuted anything i’ve said to you this whole time, why am i so bound to these rules all of a sudden but you aren’t?
none of what you’ve said is a problem for determinism. you’re simply dodging the main issues. if it was a problem, i would say so. i’m looking for a problem with determinism. you haven’t shown me one.
first of all, scientists being “unsure” whether there is variability in physical constants is not the same as there being variability in physical constants.
secondly, even if there is an amount of variability, then it’s just constant in a new way that humans haven’t figured out just yet. and maybe they’ll never figure it out!
It doesn’t matter! It doesn’t change the fact that you have no control over your own opinions in a given moment. ”

Your inane comments reflect your argumentative ineptitude.
Your inability to understand my refutations would explain why you don’t think I have refuted every claim you’ve made.

To summarize your latest responses:
1) Determinism is true because I would have noticed if it weren’t.
2) Scientists may be unsure about variability in constants but what do they know.
3) Variability is the new constant. Determinism is true even if we can’t figure out how.
4) Some gibberish.

@ETpro “I do not accept that saying isotopes decay because they are unstable ends the discussion of their deterministic nature. If they are fully determined, then it should be possible to specify exactly when the decay will hapen, and what triggers it at its precise moment of happening. If there is any scientific proof that we will someday be able to predict the decay point of an isotope, or that there is no need to, because just saying it is unstable proves it’s somehow predestined to happen at a time we will never be able to predict, then I would appreciate your showing me. Till seeing that, I will choose to believe that the statement is an argument by reductive fallacy.”

I would hardly call what I said previously a reductive fallacy. I gave much effort to explain my stance. I was not saying that this ended the discussion at all. I was merely giving an example of a deterministic yet chaotic explanation that fits the evidence. Even if an isotope’s decay was fully determined, there is no physical way for us to observe the states of these subatomic particles without disturbing them. When such particles are observed Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle kicks in and you are left with an intrinsic uncertainty. This uncertainty is caused by interacting with these particles. There is literally no physical way of interacting with these particles that would allow us to fully determine their states. This uncertainty is often believed to be the intrinsic nature of particles; however, it is widely accepted that the interaction of particles or photons cause this.

If you take the empiricist view then neither explanation matters since we can only observe the uncertain outcomes. If you take the realist view then you’re stuck taking a side. I am convinced that chaotic systems could explain most, if not all, attributions of randomness in science. Neither side can prove either possibility because we cannot obtain information about ‘random’ processes without disrupting their states.

Let’s say we have a ton of time on our hands. Something like 5 to 10 billion years. If we were to observe a large group of solar systems we would find that some solar systems fling their planets out into space while others quietly go about their business. After several billion years we might discover that the decay rate of solar systems is exponential. This would not be surprising at all as chaotic systems tend to have exponential sensitivity to initial conditions. We might even specify a half life for solar systems of certain classes. We would not be able to totally determine the outcome of each individual solar system because far too many parameters exist to take into account and the final outcomes depend greatly on initial conditions. Would you say that solar system instability is random? Of course not. We just don’t have the ability to estimate the final outcomes from the information we can obtain.

Our ability or inability to predict something has no bearing on whether the process is causal or not. The universe acts as it does whether we are here to observe it or not. To say that if we cannot predict something that it is acausal is rather facetious. The weather is a good example. We use impeccable computer simulations in order to try to predict the outcomes of weather patterns; however, it is a rare case in which a meteorologist will be 100% correct. Just because the weather appears to have elements of randomness (simulations estimate this by simple Gaussian noise) doesn’t mean those elements aren’t caused by processes that we cannot fully characterize.

To say that randomness is how the world works is to give up on trying to look for causal tendencies. Causal tendencies of physical entities are how we explain how the world works. Without causality, we cannot explain anything.

@Shuttle128
“Our ability or inability to predict something has no bearing on whether the process is causal or not.”

“To say that randomness is how the world works is to give up on trying to look for causal tendencies.”

Are you equating Prediction and/or Cause with Determination…?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’m doing the exact opposite. Prediction has no bearing on cause or determination. If something is unpredictable it is not necessarily uncaused or non-determined.

@Shuttle128 Actually, it is possible to determine without disturbing subatomic particles whether the decay of an isotope it truly stochastic or not. Truly stochastic systems behave differently than chaotic dynamical systems. It takes a very, very large number of observations of the final outcome to discern the difference, but it can be done, and work is underway to do it. I should think the fact that this is happening is evidence enough that informed science thinks that quantum events may in fact be stochastic. Again, I am the agnostic here. I am not arguing that they are stochastic, just that they may be.

Also, I should state that I am not holding out for any form of “free will” that is even a tiny bit complete. It it exists at all, will is clearly mitigated on most sides by external, deterministic constraints we have no control over. I may want to go to Paris tomorrow, but if traffic is slow going through the Ted Williams tunnel, and the plane has pushed back from the gate when I get there, all the will in the world won’t make that plane come back and pick me up. True free will would apply only to an omnipotent being, and that I am not—nor is any other human so far as I know.

At the most, I would expect that if we are able to control things with our will, it is more like me controlling my computer/brain. Like my brain, my computer has certain built-in capabilities, and I can enhance these to accomplish something I wish by buying or downloading additional software that will extend those capabilities. But it also has severe limitations. I can make it do some things I want it to do, just not all things. I can build a website if I want, or write a book, or create a piece of art. But sadly, I can’t use it to become the richest man in the world by tomorrow morning. I have some freedom to make it do what I want, but far from complete freedom. So if will exists at all, it isn’t anywhere near free.

“if will exists at all, it isn’t anywhere near free.”

Exactly the way I feel @ETpro. To borrow from your illustration, Will is the effect time has had (past tense) on the brain the way Your Computer is the effect you’ve had on it over the past 2 years.

Your computer doesn’t do what it wants, it does what it’s been made to do over time. According to what it remembers, literally. Similarly, our brains don’t do what they want, they do according to what they’ve been made to do over time. According to what they remember, literally.

—

@ETpro said: “the truth is that while we can think we know which of those two creation stories is true, none of us actually know, at least not yet.”

to “know” a proposition is true or false is simply to conclude, deductively or inductively, that that is the case. so then.. I would like to say that I feel I “actually know” that my will is not free. My knowing this doesn’t mean I’m right, but it does mean that I have no free will but to believe this is the case until stronger evidence to the contrary is presented to me. (eg. evidence such as @mystermenace failed to provide me)

The moment I receive said evidence, I’ll readily believe I have free will. But if you look closely enough you’ll realize that it’s not possible.

If I require evidence to convince me of something, then I’m not believing it by choice. I’m believing it, once again, because I’m forced to against my will by the weight of the evidence.

This being the case, I don’t ever expect it to be found out that I have free will. If I do have free will, it seems there isn’t going to be a way for me to know this is true, at least not logically.

@ninjacolin It sounds as if we have differing ways of saying essentially the same thing. :-)

lol, the main difference being that I lack any semblance of eloquence

@ETpro So, you’re a determinist now? :) Are we able to trace back from when you thought the idea was ridiculous to when you became friends with it?

@ninjacolin Are you equating Cause or Predictability with Determination?

I’m not sure what you mean by that, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies. Can you ask the question… longer somehow? :)

To me, determination = “The process (or details) by which a given effect is caused”

@ninjacolin No, I am still an agnostic. I am just being clear on what I mean when saying that there may be some limited degree of free will in operation in human thought.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I agree with @Shuttle128‘s comment: “if something is unpredictable it is not necessarily uncaused or non-determined.”

@ETpro sorry, i guess i misunderstood your earlier comments. Myself, I don’t see any room for free will in my thoughts. I can’t even control whether I’m thinking. My brain just seems to keep thinking moment by moment about whatever it sees fit. To say I’m in control of what I’m thinking seems inaccurate to me. I’m not. I’m thinking, yes, but I don’t feel able to influence my own thought processes. Consciousness seems to be a thing my brain handles, and therefore a process of the (cause-and-effect) material universe. Whether it’s meanderings are perpetuated by utterly random quantum particles or by a highly ordered bio-mechanical system (like photosynthesis) either way, there isn’t really an individual pulling strings on my brain’s behalf. Instead, there is the brain itself, it’s structure, it’s processes. This machine is what I refer to as “I”.

@ninjacolin “To me, determination = “The process (or details) by which a given effect is caused”

To make any progress in this discussion, we must carefully analyze our choice of words and be very precise on our definitions. There are two types of Causes. Only one of them can express Determinism.

Cause #1… Chaos

Cause #2… Reason
_____________________________

Chaotic Cause results in E-ffect…

Reasoned Cause determines A-ffect…

Do you not see the difference?
_____________________________

Chaotic Cause does not, and cannot set out to determine anything. It cannot will. It cannot desire. It cannot duplicate or be copied. It is not codified unless someone observes, measures and codifies it. No two mudslides will ever be the same. No two pulsars are the same. No two tornadoes will ever be the same. It is Chaos, and by definition, that is the opposite of Determinism. Chaos is Indeterminate.

Chaotic Cause IS a process, but it has ”no details” as you say. Details are codified sentient observations about the phenomenon. But the phenomenon does not detail anything. Details come from a mind.
_____________________________

Reasoned Cause is the epitome of Determinism. Reason is a product of mindful desire. It is different from ChaosCause/Reaction. ReasonCause is Thought/Action. And every Thought/Action consists of extremely precise details.

The Details you speak of ARE Codified Descriptions. They come from Mind, and they are Very Determined to Make Sense of our observable reality.
_____________________________

So, how do we know if something is a product of Chaotic Cause or Reasoned Cause?

Look for a Code. A code that abides by Purlwitz, Burks, and Watermans definition of probability space A mapped to probability space B. Code is the only way to Determine anything at all. And thus it is the only proof to support if a thing is Determined or not. Code is the empirical evidence that allows us to know.
_____________________________

Cause without Code is Indeterminate.

Cause with Code is Determinism incarnate beheld.
_____________________________

Cause without Code has no Plan of Action.

Cause with Code IS a Plan of Action.

Determinism REQUIRES a Plan of Action.
_____________________________

We cannot claim that the Universe or Creation is Determined, because we have no Code from the Universe to make that claim upon. We can write Code about our observations, thereby determining for ourselves what the Universe means to us. But without our descriptions of the Universe, it means nothing at all. And if something doesn’t mean anything, then it cannot possibly determine anything.
_____________________________

But in Genetics, we do have a Code. The Genetic Code. And since it fits the proper definition of Code, we can rightfully claim that it does in fact determine very precisely. It determines @ninjacolin. And forensics will confirm that for you after your next crime spree.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Redefining determinism to your liking doesn’t negate anyone’s arguments. I know you like arguing semantics but you really don’t need to nitpick the word choice of “determinism.” The definition you are using is very obviously not the one that we are using.

The sense that we are using “determine” is that something that is determined is simply an event that inevitably leads to a specific outcome. I’m fairly certain you understand this. If you would like us to simply reserve the word “determined” for examples of planned action than just say so. The common understanding of determinism in this context is the one which ninjacolin and I have used.

@ETpro I’m glad to hear that efforts are being made to try to discover if radioactive decay is random or chaotic. You do, however, need to be able to observe certain qualities about the atoms and cannot simply just use statistics. The only way to test for true randomness is to be able to observe the time evolution of the system in question. Using statistical methods it can be determined if the error is Gaussian or exponential. Gaussian indicates a stochastic system, while exponential indicates a non-linear or feedback chaotic system. The more complex the system is the higher order you have to go in your analysis which exponentially increases computation time.

All of this requires that you find similar states to the test state and finding these states requires you to characterize the qualities of the system in question. I don’t know what exactly they’re doing (I would be very interested to see though) but it would seem that anything that would rely on measurements of subatomic systems would be subject to the problems of uncertainty. If their methods do rely on characterizing radioactive isotopes they may or may not be able to pick out whether it is determined or not. I have a feeling the signal to noise ratio of the non-random error to the random error due to uncertainty might be rather large. Very large numbers of samples would definitely need to be considered. It sounds like this is a pretty massive undertaking.

Yes I know what you guys are talking about, but I do indeed feel it crucial to nitpick on the word determinism. For it has been redefined, vaguely defined, and is erroneously used against the etymology of the word. I truly believe this is the cause of such confusion in this debate. I’m simply attempting to get at the root of the issue.

As a word that describes a theory, Determinism was first coined over 400 years after the words Determine and Determination were crafted. The original meaning for Determine was always involved with properties of mind, that decided, made decisions, intentions, finding, direction… and Determination was the process of doing these things. And all of this was accomplished with Code.

400 years later, some philosopher loosely wraps a vague theory around a new word and POOF!!!… Determinism is born.

When I say, loosely wraps a vague theory… that’s exactly what I mean. Because now, the current incarnation of Determinism attempts to equate and conflate “Acts of Will” with “Occurrences in Nature”. These are not the same phenomenon, and refusing to acknowledge the differences leads science and philosophy astray. The whole debate is a figment of our imagination for it is built upon the strawman of equating Mindful Acts with Mindless Effects.

The debate is flawed because the word has been hijacked to mean something that it cannot mean. That one word Determinism is broken. It cannot mean both things. And we are forever sent on a wild goose chase until this fact is addressed.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t differentiate between mindful acts and mindless effects. They are both dependent on the same underlying principles. The only distinction is that one is caused by a complex system we call a mind and the other is caused by a complex system we call the environment. There is no dividing line between mind and environment.

Mindless effect can cause and earthquake. Mindful action can relieve the suffering and plan to prevent that suffering in the future.

And that’s the big difference. The ability to envision.

Mindless effect cannot know how it wants things to be. Chaotic Cause/Effect cannot desire.

Mindful actions do know exactly how it wants things to be. Mindful Cause/Effect can desire.
_________________________

There is a theory, I forget what it’s called, but it suggests that the capacity for desire was born from an ability to throw an object. Throwing must envision an outcome before it ever manifests into physical reality. Mindless effect cannot do that.

Throwing is a way that Mind can Determine an outcome by harnessing the properties of chaos. The Mind computes past codified observations and thus takes into account notions such as gravity, distance, velocity, and wind drift. Mind can account for all of this entropy and still predestine an accurate final outcome through computational compensation manifest into a physical action. Mindless Cause cannot predestine or compensate… and therefor it cannot Determine.

Mind can judge, decide, and intend. Chaos cannot.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Desire is an effect. Planning is an effect. Mindful action is an effect. Judging, Deciding, Intending.. these are all effects.

These effects were caused.

Those are A-ffects, not E-ffects.

To claim otherwise suggests there is no foundation to hold people responsible for their actions… because there are no actions… only reactions, and therefor every crime is justified and all suffering required. I cannot accept this.

Humans have the unique ability for authorship. We can A-ffect a change upon our environment and other people. And those we A-ffect can choose to what degree they are A-ffected by my actions. I will not allow humanity to be reduced to a simple rock in the sand.

“Those are A-ffects, not E-ffects.”

Nope. They are effects which affect new effects. :)

“To claim otherwise suggests there is no foundation to hold people responsible for their actions… because there are no actions… only reactions, and therefor every crime is justified and all suffering required. I cannot accept this.”

Then your argument against determinism takes the form of an Appeal to Consequences fallacy.

Also, the consequences you’re worried about, non-responsibility, isn’t really a problem when you think about it. It’s definitely a scary thought at first but it works out to be a non-issue. I strongly suggest not worrying about whether people are “responsible” for their actions in a deterministic universe when it comes to figuring out whether the universe is deterministic or not. it will only distract you from the truth of the matter, as all fallacies try to do.

“I will not allow humanity to be reduced to a simple rock in the sand.”

this argument takes the form of an Appeal to Authority fallacy. “Because I say so”

Appeal to Consequence fallacy requires an appeal to emotion. I did not present an emotion and never suggested that lack of responsibility was desirable or not. I simply make note of the resulting truth proposition. Sans subjective emotions, will you deny that your form of Determinism justifies every crime and therefor requires all suffering?

The ethics of such a notion are a different subject.

On a side note, here is an interesting discussion on the subject.

before we continue, i find myself on the offensive with these comments so I just wanted to reiterate how much i love discussing/debating with you, @RealEyesRealizeRealLies and i trust nothing we say is taken as an offense. all criticisms offered for consideration are meant to be constructive :)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “I did not present an emotion and never suggested that lack of responsibility was desirable or not.”

Yes, you did (or seemed to) when you said: “every crime is justified and all suffering required. I cannot accept this.” This is the emotion part. Your comments articulate disdain for the idea that crimes are just and suffering is required.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “will you deny that your form of Determinism justifies every crime and therefor requires all suffering?”

why would i deny it? you’re right, a truly deterministic universe is one where everything that has happened in the past couldn’t have happened any other way. so if someone suffered, then their suffering was necessarily a function of existence itself.

The ethics of such a notion are a different subject. – I agree. It’s an interesting subject though and I’d be happy to discuss it.

@ETpro your link is reminding me of a fact that I never mention but often think about during these determinism debates: The people who try to fight for a probabilistic world view are biased toward libertarian ideologies. Their panties get all wet whenever they hear about the universe being seemingly unpredictable at the quantum level because it supports their belief that they are free.

However, they ignore the fact that a random universe governed by probability still isn’t a free-will kinda universe. Instead, it’s a universe where peoples’ decisions are based on random chance rather than autonomy.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “Mindless effect can cause and earthquake. Mindful action can relieve the suffering and plan to prevent that suffering in the future.

And that’s the big difference. The ability to envision.

Mindless effect cannot know how it wants things to be. Chaotic Cause/Effect cannot desire.

Mindful actions do know exactly how it wants things to be. Mindful Cause/Effect can desire.”

Mindful action is an effect of the orientations of physical matter and their initial conditions. The brain is constructed from genetics and socialization, both are products of the physical rules the universe abides by. To call something a mind is usually to imply it has autonomy; however, I reject this because I believe the mind to be causally dependent on conditions of the environment and itself. We don’t say control systems plan, yet they do create predetermined outcomes using feedback. Why should brains be looked at any differently?

Envisioning is a big difference, but it is still causal. You cannot envision something without the necessary understanding of the underlying principles of what you are envisioning. The envisioned action can only develop if previous experience leads to such a foreseeable action. You cannot envision throwing a ball if you do not have the necessary background experience that allows you to formulate the idea of throwing the ball. If, for instance, you did not know that when you let go of something it will continue in the same direction it was headed then you could not envision throwing a ball. Envisioning is a causal process drawing from experience and the current state of the brain. Desire is a causal process drawing from experience and the current state of the brain as well.

The things you describe as special to minds are very interesting consequences of very complex systems of feedback loops within a neural network that is subject to input from the environment; but, these are ultimately causal processes. To try to draw a clear distinction between mind and environment is to say that the environment doesn’t affect the mind, but we know this is not true. The brain is the carrier of the mind, and the brain is influenced by external and internal events.

The brain plans because of its configuration. Its configuration necessarily leads to the outcome of performing or not performing what plans the brain plans to perform. Actions that are planned occur or do not occur due to states in the brain brought about either by introspection or outside influences. Both are causal. It seems as though people like to grasp onto introspection as reason to believe in free will; however, introspection is merely the brain’s reaction to its own state. It’s just a control loop and control loops are causal.

As an aside: I believe we attribute responsibility of actions to people in order to modify their behavior and to serve as an example to others of what we expect of their behavior. This does not require that people have free will. I do not condone the death penalty for this reason. If free will does not exist then the buck does not stop at a person’s decisions. A person’s upbringing should have some manner of play in the analysis of their responsibility for actions. Actions are performed because of upbringing and genetics. We attribute responsibility to people so we can identify where these faults lie, and how to work around them to get results we desire out of society.

In this case things are still just or unjust because they are being evaluated by societal peers. We place moral responsibility on their shoulders in order to identify problems in society and discourage their furtherance in society as well as to try to fix the problems that exist in the individual.

@ninjacolin No wet panties here. I am an agnostic—the polar opposite of a committed ideologue. And I totally agree, whether the universe is ordered by pure determinism or partially by probabilistic stochastic particle physics pushing things around, things are still getting pushed around. I can’t be any more free as a interiority using my brain than I as a programmer are totally free to use my computer. I am still bound by the causal rules that structure what my computing unit (be it brain or microprocessor, will allow.

@ninjacolin Thanks for the comments. You’re more worried about my feelings than I am. We’re both big kids now, and this is an important issue. So let’s just speak our minds and know that it’s nothing personal.

So look, try not to accuse me of an Appeal to Authority, right after you say “Nope. They are effects which affect new effects.”, without supporting your statement or addressing the differences I’ve pointed out between Chaos and Mind.

And, I’m very curious… Did the universe Determine that you would attempt to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head…? Somehow providing you with the ability to accuse me of a moral judgment when I have made no such judgment?

Just because I say that “I cannot accept” something, doesn’t mean that I reject it upon ethical grounds.

I’ve given you the reasons, of which you chose to disagree with. But please don’t bait or lead me away from my own reasoning.
________________________________

But I’m partially appreciative of your need to think for me. It helps to illustrate a gaping hole in your position.

The Universe is the epitome of efficiency. Nothing goes to waste, and everything is recycled and reformed. How is it that such an efficient mechanism would ever allow such inefficient misunderstandings to exist between us?

I’m not speaking of purpose, for if we are all just a smattering of simplistic bumps and grinds, then there is obviously no purpose at all. No, what I speak of is inefficiency.

Why or how, would the most perfectly efficient machine that has ever been witnessed be capable of manufacturing inefficiency? Does not compute! Everything including organic and inorganic matter is becoming more and more complex. How is complexity accomplished with inefficiency?

Why would the universe allow us to argue mute points? Why would it program for killing and raping the planet from natural resources?

And most of all, considering the end of it all, as the cosmos eventually dissipates into nothingness… what praytell, could such an efficient mechanism possibly be determining then?
__________________________

Only codified plans can determine. They have a defined beginning and a defined ending. This so called cosmic determination that you claim doesn’t seem plausible for it to ultimately determine everything into nothingness. What’s the point of all the complexity in between? Why go through the trouble at all?
__________________________

And lastly, please acknowledge my comments about how the word Determinism has been hijacked against the original etymology of the roots Determine and Determination. Again I say, this entire debate is flawed because the word Determinism is a broken, and therefor represents a broken concept.

Okay, let’s coin a word to use in this discussion. It will be called causism and will mean exactly what ninjacolin and I use the word determinism to describe.

If you go back and replace “determined” with “induced by a prior cause,” “determinism” with “causism,” and “determines” with “causes.” You will have the exact same arguments with no room for your critique of etymology. You are arguing that the definition of determine we are using is different from what it should be (really definitions are determined by whoever chooses provided that definition is made clear and is accepted) and that this is a fundamental cause for confusion in this debate; however, you’ve shown nothing that would suggest that, if these words were replaced with the definitions we use, our arguments would break down.

We are not arguing at all, in any way, shape, or form, that the universe plans for things to occur. That you are arguing against this strawman is absurd.

We are arguing that a plan-less universe causes things to happen by its very nature.

apologies in advance for the length:

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “try not to accuse me of an Appeal to Authority, right after you say “Nope. They are effects which affect new effects.”, without supporting your statement or addressing the differences I’ve pointed out between Chaos and Mind.”

No worries, I was just providing a snap shot of my perspective so you knew what i was arguing for. Anyway, I agree with you that definitions of terms are important. And it’s been a very big issue for me when trying to have these discussions to separate my perspective from the strawman perspective of determinism. @Shuttle128‘s done a good job of making the distinction plain. “Causism” haha. I could get used to that but it’ll take some time. :)

I don’t know what you mean about attempting to think for you. I wasn’t, I was just letting you know what I’ve (mis)understood from your words. Which is interesting because when you ask:

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “Did the universe Determine that you would attempt to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head…?”

The answer is yes. Because of my misunderstanding of your words, I had no choice but to respond the way I did. See how that works? If I happen to understand you to mean One thing, I’ll have no choice but to respond as if you said One thing. If, however, I happen to understand you to mean something Else, then I’ll have no choice but to respond as if you mean something Else.

My beliefs, whether correct or incorrect, necessarily cause my actions in EVERY case of “autonomous” behavior. (Please note, this is an absolute statement) Just as your beliefs about determinism force you to participate in this discussion the way you have been, my beliefs force me to participate in a different way than you. Our beliefs, our opinions, which we are not in control of moment by moment cause our individual responses.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “I’ve given you the reasons, of which you chose to disagree with”

this is incorrect. I don’t “choose” to disagree with you. I merely observe that I disagree with you. No choice involved.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “The Universe is the epitome of efficiency. Nothing goes to waste, and everything is recycled and reformed. How is it that such an efficient mechanism would ever allow such inefficient misunderstandings to exist between us?”

the same way and for the same reasons that this efficient system created and destroyed the dodo bird, the trex, and Homo habilis. This is a system that likes large numbers of attempts. It makes a bunch of something, each a little different, then thins out the successful via a process of elimination called: Natural Selection.

This is to say, the universe is only as efficient as it is.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “Why or how, would the most perfectly efficient machine that has ever been witnessed be capable of manufacturing inefficiency? Does not compute! Everything including organic and inorganic matter is becoming more and more complex. How is complexity accomplished with inefficiency?”

Through natural selection.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “Why would the universe allow us to argue moot points? Why would it program for killing and raping the planet from natural resources? And most of all, considering the end of it all, as the cosmos eventually dissipates into nothingness… what praytell, could such an efficient mechanism possibly be determining then?”

The universe allows us to argue moot points because it didn’t seem to have any other choice. ;) I hope you are an evolutionist. As such, I expect you to comprehend how much waste this “epitome of efficiency” is capable of.

The universe is what it is. It isn’t anything else. It took the universe 13 billion years just to come up with a website called Fluther! I mean, if you gave me the project I could’ve had it done in like 2 or 3 months tops! But whatever.. it’s working as efficiently as it is able to.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “Only codified plans can determine”

Is that so? Then, who determined that the earth should have a moon instead of 2 moons or no moon? how did the earth moon relationship come to be if it wasn’t ever determined? (Mind you, I believe shuttle’s comment renders this part of the conversation invalid… let me know)

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “This so called cosmic determination that you claim doesn’t seem plausible for it to ultimately determine everything into nothingness. What’s the point of all the complexity in between? Why go through the trouble at all?”

apparently, it’s because there is no other way.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies asked: “And lastly, please acknowledge my comments about how the word Determinism has been hijacked against the original etymology of the roots Determine and Determination”

I stand behind @Shuttle128‘s comments about this. We were expecting you to consider our use of the term as a reclamation with a shiny brand new definition that actually makes sense for a change.

I ran across this in a book I am reading. It doesn’t speak directly to the question, but makes the case for Compatibilism being a possibility a bit stronger, I think.

“Research has shown that chaos can emerge in the simplest of situations—even if only three particles interact with each other. This demolishes the centuries-old myth of predictability and time-symmetric determinism, and with it any idea of a clockwork universe.”

* Physicist and chaos researcher Joseph Ford. From The Arrow of Time: A Voyage Through Science to Solve TIme’s Greatest Mystery. Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield..

Citing “Research” as the source of determining that the universe is indeterminable seems a little too convenient.

@ninjacolin I’ve noticed that if you don’t like what is presented, you tend to shoot down the credibility of the way it’s presented. How is ET’s research citing any more convenient than citing your own opinion as the source of determining that the universe was determined?

With our mindful attention, it seems we have agreed that we aren’t even speaking of determinism any longer, in that Shuttle has offered us a new word separating the concepts of Determinism (as from mind) from Causism (as from Chaos). If you are truly giving me that word back to its original tautology of etymological meaning, as a property of mind, then in fact, you don’t believe in a concept called Determinism any longer. What you promote is Causism.

I do not deny this concept of Causism. I believe that everything can truly be traced backwards from every cause/effect since the singularity. And although in this manner, we (as mindful creatures) may be able To Determine What Caused everything, that by no means suggests that The Cause predicted and determined everything in advance. Only a mind can predict and/or determine anything.

If what ET’s cite says is true, I’d hope you would offer it the consideration it deserves in the spirit of searching for Truth as opposed to from Dogma.

Well, yea, I’d like to know what research they’ve done to determine that. But my comment was meant to point out the futility of trying to determine truth in a universe where there isn’t anything objective going on.

My thoughts on Compatiblism is that it falls short I’ll offer an alternative view in a moment. From @ETpro‘s link:

“a person acts on their own only when the person wanted to do the act and the person could have done otherwise, if the person had decided to.” – Hobbes

ignores the fact that the person didn’t have a choice in whether they wanted to.

“compatibilists point to cases of someone’s free will being denied, through rape, murder, theft, or others. In these cases, free will is lacking not because the past is determining the future, but because the aggressor is choosing the victim’s desires about his own actions. Their argument is that determinism does not matter; what matters is that individuals’ choices are the results of their own desires and are not overridden by some external (or internal) force.”

Ignores the fact that an individual’s desires aren’t chosen.

“instinct and utility between them can safely be trusted to carry on the social business of punishment and praise” regardless of metaphysical theories. – William James ”

i agree with this sentiment in many ways. but he’s still wrong (imo) about other ideas.

“Modern compatibilists”, such as Harry Frankfurt and Daniel Dennett, argue that there are cases where a coerced agent’s choices are still free because such coercion coincides with the agent’s personal intentions and desires.”

Frankfurt and Dennett both ignore the fact that the agent’s personal intentions and desires are not free to begin with.
—

These guys are essentially trying to say we have no free will and then trying to find a way to make sense of morality/law/good behavior and the like. If you want to define “the understanding of morality in a deterministic universe” as “compatiblism” then i’m all for it! But determinism is, as far as I can tell, the way of things.

Every effect has it’s cause as far back as we can tell through history. It’s safe to assume, then that all future events will have a historical cause as well. Moral behavior is the effect that a mind filled with progressive ideas will cause.

sorry, i suppose i should say “causism”

Not much of a discussion when one consistently claims… “Ignores the fact…”, as if you’ve produced some irrefutable proof that “desires aren’t chosen”. Why are you claiming your opinion as fact? There are obviously a number of great thinkers out there that don’t buy the facts as you present them… otherwise they wouldn’t be ignoring them.

What facts could you be ignoring?

@ninjacolin I cited the work and its quote, but the quote itself is cited, and I should have included reference to that. Here it is. “It has been claimed that this may lead to time-symmetrical indeterminism (H. Price, Nature 348, 356(1990)). This eroneous view arises from a lack of understanding of what is meant by entropy: for highly chaotic systems for which an entropy can be defined, one might a priori attempt to describe time evolution either in terms of probabilities or with deterministic equations. But only the stochastic description can break the time-symmetry and reveal the arrow of time, as determined by P Coveney, Nature 333, 409(1988) and S. Goldstein et al. Journal of Statistical Physics 25, 111 (1981).

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “Why are you claiming your opinion as fact?”

I only do this when I’m sure about something.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies said: “There are obviously a number of great thinkers out there that don’t buy the facts as you present them.”

I told you, every effect needs it’s cause. They can’t just know these things without first coming to learn they are true.. that would be magic or “free will” as libertarians call it. ;)

It is a fact that you have no control over your desires at a given moment. This is to say, if you feel hungry right now, you can’t help but feel hungry right now. You can’t control whether you believe you feel hungry or not. You either do or you don’t. You either feel like driving or you feel like letting your wife drive.. you either feel like getting up or you feel like staying in bed. What you desire or prefer causes you to behave in a way to pursue it, but you can’t help what it is you happen to desire or prefer.

Why? Because humans don’t have the ability to freely choose what they believe the truth value of a premise is, whether for True False or Uncertain. They can only acknowledge the truth value of a given premise as they see it. No choice involved.

I don’t let feelings run my life. I am a free will sentient entity. I control my feelings, not the other way around.

Feeling Hungry is not synonymous with Desiring Pizza. Why are you conflating the two? Tell me how you feel about this, and then tell me how you will act upon your feelings.

@ninjacolin “I only do this when I’m sure about something.”

So, your word is final?

What could be the purpose of you joining this conversation then?

Premise: Colin desires pizza at the moment / Colin feels like having pizza at the moment
Truth value: False.

I’m not choosing not to want pizza at the moment. I’m simply observing that I don’t want pizza at the moment. I can’t choose to feel like having pizza. I’ll feel like having pizza if and when I feel like it, no sooner.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies the purpose of joining such a discussion is to contribute what I’ve discovered, compare it against what you’ve discovered and therby form new opinions from the fray.

By sharing my opinions, I subject them to criticism. I would be really impressed if someone could critique that point about not being able to choose the perceived truth value of a premise, but I’m confident at this point that no one ever will. It’s self evident and testable.

“I would be really impressed if…”

No, by your standard, you would be really impressed regardless.

”...is to contribute what I’ve discovered…”

No, by your standard, you don’t discover anything, and there isn’t even really a who in you. You’re just the currently running program, nothing more.

”...and thereby form new opinions from the fray”

How can the who-less you form anything close to an opinion without it being formed formed for you (the who-less). You’ve got nothing to do with it right? By your standard, you’ve got nothing at all. The who-less you IS nothing at all.

So who am I speaking with? And if you aren’t you, then I’m not me. WTF is making this conversation happen?

How inefficient

“WTF is making this conversation happen?”

in my opinion, absolutely nothing. nothing is what is happening and it can’t be stopped.

That’s right… but not for the reasons you believe.

When you say “nothing”… you mean no thing… as in no physical thing.

But Mind is not a physical thing. Yet it is the very agent that accounts for the you in your opinion.

Without it, you couldn’t have one

what makes you think mind isn’t physical? what evidence do you have to support that opinion?

There are numerous reasons and evidence for this. It’s involved, and I’ll get back to this when I can. But just know, that science has never been successful at reducing personhood to mere flesh and bone. There is more to you than that.

now here is nowhere