[Geezer]

Greezer,
sorry for my bad english... it's maybe because of that
anyway do you agree with me?

if yes than we can go further...

we are a kind of robots... our free will is likely to the robot's >> determined
there are two things which determine our behavior
1. dna
2. circumstances

none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer
i am only responsible for the society >> for the laws which are necessary for working the system

Ah, but that's my point about computers (and robots if you like). Their state is not synchronized with the external events to which they react, so their behaviour is never truly deterministic. You can only say they will probably do this or that.

[Geezer]

Our brain is a physical entity that calculates and controls all our behavior and thought. It might make inaccurate or uninformed calculations, but it is the physical instrument of our behavior and thought. When parts of it are broken, we don’t work so well. So if anybody wishes to claim that this isn’t true and that this system is, somehow, working outside of causality please explain how this can work. Steve

Based on our current understanding, without a time machine, it's impossible to recreate precisely a set of circumstances, so it's impossible to prove that we will behave exactly the same way twice. We can only talk of probabilities.

Consider this: The states of the stuff of which we are made (atoms) is indeterminate. If you can prove that a uranium atom is controlled in a deterministic fashion so that we can say, with great accuracy, when it will emit a particle as it decays, then perhaps we have no free will.

 

[sliffy]

we can't be sure that atoms are indeterminate... scientists say it today and it can be changed tomorrow... atoms should behave by rules as well... just we don't know all this rules yet... but rules should exist
anyway i wouldn't dig so deep into the system... i am not sure in anything... i am not sure if material exist... the whole system can be an illusion... everything is posssible

i just say that the system works by rules... there should be rules... if there is no rule >> then it is a rule that there is no rule... coincident doesn't exist
a system working by a rule is determined... that's all i want to say
we are part of a determined world >> our fate is determined

[Geezer]

we can't be sure that atoms are indeterminate... scientists say it today and it can be changed tomorrow... atoms should behave by rules as well... just we don't know all this rules yet... but rules should exist
anyway i wouldn't dig so deep into the system... i am not sure in anything... i am not sure if material exist... the whole system can be an illusion... everything is posssible

i just say that the system works by rules... there should be rules... if there is no rule >> then it is a rule that there is no rule... coincident doesn't exist
a system working by a rule is determined... that's all i want to say
we are part of a determined world >> our fate is determined

Well, if you are going to refute a huge amount of well established science, you might as well say that the rules are established by the Easter Bunny  []. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, and it seems unlikely I'll be able to alter it either.

[yor_on]

Hmm yeah, wow.
you guys really have looked into this

Geezer, nice to see that we are two that think that indeterminacy exist
As for if it's a 'clock work universe?'

I vote n0000. )

As for if we have a 'Divine Designer'?
I don't really know.
He haven't knocked on my door yet though.

And if we know want to go with a predestined universe, shouldn't we inform those poor particles too? So that they can stop that nonsense? And our 'virtual particles' N0 Such Thing We will have order here, GET IN LINE...

[SteveFish]

Geezer (Greezer, I like it). Everybody seems to be hung up on quantum mechanics and intrinsically unpredictable phenomena. Just because the outcome is statistical doesn’t mean that what happened wasn’t dependent upon what happened previously. So, you can’t determine exactly when a specific uranium atom undergoes fission, but isn’t the fact that it does, eventually, have a specific cause and effect relationship. At the brain level, individual neural decisions are even more statistically related and much more complex than uranium fission.  When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness. It took me a while to understand this, but the main point in this discussion is— If you think that free will just consists of randomness in the chain of causality, then free will is a trivial concept. In other words, what is free about making random errors? Steve

[yor_on]

Steve you're plain wrong there.
If you look up my references you will understand,

[SteveFish]

Yor_on. You said you didn't wish to discuss this. I respect your decision. Steve

[yor_on]

That's true.

Chaos theory. 

[yor_on]

And those digital computers?
How 'digital' are they??

[SteveFish]

I have several books on Chaos theory. It has nothing to do with this topic.

[yor_on]

Well, believe me or not, but they work on 'energy'
Anyone want to show me a ounce of pure energy??

And no white powder now.. Energy thank you.

And if we work our way up we come to 'virtual photons' and then to 'real' photons' and then to electrons protons and stuff'
That behaves so weiirrdd.

Electrons can be superpositioned for example, meaning that 'one' can be in two 'places' simultaneously And then that stupid 'electricity' can 'tunnel' through solid matter too? Where they shouldn't. But not all the time, statistically or probability defines the amount. But we can't define 'when', well, as far as I know?

And then we come to GF.
Totally unpredictable they are, as any male of sound mind knows

[yor_on]

Well, if you have them?

Then you should know. For the rest of us, not having your books Steve the link might be nice
Do look at what a bifurcation is.

[SteveFish]

I do know. I also know that you should calm down a little. If you really want to talk about free will, you have to give a definition before anyone could evaluate how quantum events might support the notion. I presume your reference to chaos theory has to do with the butterfly effect. This is a causal, though unexpected, event, and is very, very, rare in the real world. Steve

[yor_on]

What you should notice is that even though we can't define single outcomes there will still be possible to see what I call 'patterns' as showed by the Feigenbaum constant. And that's just so weird I think. Here we have outcomes that in fact are unpredictable but when looking at larger patterns we still see a linearity. And that reminds me of statistics, and the fact that even though we can't predict single human behavior, as if we could psychology would look the exact same all over the world with every mental disease on its proper shelve, but it doesn't. Every country find their own definition and although psychologist worldwide try to 'get in line' it's still a very 'human science'

That's why behaviorism is so popular nowadays. It wants to reduce human behavior to a Newtonian 'action and reaction'. And it works in a lot of ways Humans are, if nothing else, adaptable to the society they live in, but so did shamanism Not that I find psychology and shamanism to be the same. Anyway, most thing in life seems unpredictable on a 'personal plane' even though predictable statistically. Just like those Russian dolls, inside dolls, inside dolls insi.. Thats unpredictability inside predictability insi.. etc.

And that's what I find interesting.

[Geezer]

Geezer (Greezer, I like it). Everybody seems to be hung up on quantum mechanics and intrinsically unpredictable phenomena. Just because the outcome is statistical doesn’t mean that what happened wasn’t dependent upon what happened previously. So, you can’t determine exactly when a specific uranium atom undergoes fission, but isn’t the fact that it does, eventually, have a specific cause and effect relationship. At the brain level, individual neural decisions are even more statistically related and much more complex than uranium fission.  When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness. It took me a while to understand this, but the main point in this discussion is— If you think that free will just consists of randomness in the chain of causality, then free will is a trivial concept. In other words, what is free about making random errors? Steve

Thanks Steve.

[yor_on]

No, chaos theory shows itself everywhere Steve.

[Geezer]

When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness. 

It's not a question of randomness. It's a question of a lack of synchronization with a causal sequence that can result in different responses. In many cases this will have a very small effect (if any) on the outcome, but it still means that the outcome is statistically indeterminate.

[SteveFish]

Geezer, I agree with your assessment. What I have said suggests the question-- Do you think that a little true randomness in the decisions that we all make represents free will? I don't think that my occasional mistakes, whether I am aware of them or not, are a representation of freedom. It seems to me that this represents the opposite because I am not responsible. Steve

[Geezer]

Geezer, I agree with your assessment. What I have said suggests the question-- Do you think that a little true randomness in the decisions that we all make represents free will? I don't think that my occasional mistakes, whether I am aware of them or not, are a representation of freedom. It seems to me that this represents the opposite because I am not responsible. Steve

I'm not referring to randomness, or making mistakes. All I'm saying is that, because you are not completely synchronized with the events in your "environment", even if your evaluation process has no variables within it, you may reach different conclusions for an "apparently" identical set of inputs. I think that's the same as saying you have free will.